Judge denies Bush the power to choose which groups are terrorists.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I'm glad the judiciary has started doing it's job
and keeping the Executive in line.

And who keeps the Judiciary in check? The power the robed few have given themselves, it takes a constitutional amendment to overturn them.

The congressional arm is suppose to keep the judiciary in check.
Hence why they have the power to amend the constitution.

It's a triangle really, The Executive keeps the Congress in check
through vetoes and pocket vetoes, the Congress keeeps the
Judiciary in check through having constitutional power, and the
Judiciary keeps the Executive in check by deciding what powers
it can give itself or be given.

Originally posted by iori_komei
The congressional arm is suppose to keep the judiciary in check.
Hence why they have the power to amend the constitution.

Thanks for the history lesson but seeing as how we have only had 27 constitutional amendments in our history and how many court precedents and cases? Point being that a constitutional amendment is not as easy to get as a court decision from a certain judge. The courts can overrule any law congress makes simply by saying it's unconstitutional, think about that. One individuals interpretation overrules the entire congress and the executive branch, and there are how many such individuals with that type of power each with their own view of what the constitution means? Fact is no one can practically check and control the judiciary, they are the only breach which controls and checks itself.

westpoint, its not that easy. They can't just go, "No thats unconstitutional, get rid of it" end of story. If they give an explaination as to WHY it is, then fine. If they did that, you would see some SERIOUS problems throughout the entire government/public.

Yeah they explain themselves but so what? If congress does not agree with their explanation there is nothing they can do about it, except amend the constitution.
Just because I explain my actions doesn't mean I'm right.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Year they explain themselves but so what? If congress does not agree with their explanation there is nothing they can do about it, except amend the constitution.
Just because I explain my actions doesn't mean I'm right.

yea but if nobody agrees with it, you think they will be around for very long?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
yea but if nobody agrees with it, you think they will be around for very long?

Are you sugesting they would be murdered?

Supreme court justices are'nt democratically elected, they are
appointed by the president, when there's a vacancy, and they
hold that position for life, or until they decide to retire.

I don't know if one can be fired.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Are you sugesting they would be murdered?

Supreme court justices are'nt democratically elected, they are
appointed by the president, when there's a vacancy, and they
hold that position for life, or until they decide to retire.

I don't know if one can be fired.

no but I imagine that if they were found to be unfit for the position and refuse to resign there is a way to remove them from their power. I highly doubt our founders believed that they were incorruptable, or unable to lose their marbles, etc.

Im sure there would be a way to remove them if we were to find they were calling law unconstitutional with no reasoning, and refusing to acknowledge those who bring that fact up.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by iori_komei
Are you sugesting they would be murdered?

Supreme court justices are'nt democratically elected, they are
appointed by the president, when there's a vacancy, and they
hold that position for life, or until they decide to retire.

I don't know if one can be fired.

no but I imagine that if they were found to be unfit for the position and refuse to resign there is a way to remove them from their power. I highly doubt our founders believed that they were incorruptable, or unable to lose their marbles, etc.

Im sure there would be a way to remove them if we were to find they were calling law unconstitutional with no reasoning, and refusing to acknowledge those who bring that fact up.

Well from what I understand, apart from retiring, the only
way they could removed is if they commited a crime, like
murder, or rape, grand theft.


EDIT:
Spelling.

[edit on 11/29/2006 by iori_komei]

Sorry Westpont, I am a die-hard patriot and I love this country with a passion, but even I must say that this is not an option that a President should have. It is unthinkable. Its like "hey I am feeling really irate today, I am going to add political dissentors to the blacklist today, and then use my wonderful pawns in the CIA to stage a violent false-flag operation so I will have the public support"

I don't feel like being called a terrorist for expressing my right to disagree with our government, which is where I feel a power like the one denied to him would eventually lead to. You only support it because it has not been used against us. What will you say when domestic groups without a history of violence until the moments preceeding the blacklist come to fruition?

This is a wonderful show of our Democracy in action, thats the best way to describe it.

Lol @ shots.

Its actually sad but still very funny.. that's the only thing that remains after all. ;8

You trust one single person and write confused things. But there is salvation.
Did you see what Majic posted? It is there before your eyes.

You can feel it.. you can touch it. You can see it, shots.

It is truth. "Awwww".. How wonderful the truth is. ;D

DYepes, don't get me wrong I'd rather no one person have that kind of power, I prefer the President, or anyone for that matter, be required to prove their case before a special court (three judges at least) set up for these things. One which is both secret and speedy.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DYepes, don't get me wrong I'd rather no one person have that kind of power, I prefer the President, or anyone for that matter, be required to prove their case before a special court (three judges at least) set up for these things. One which is both secret and speedy.

But that would make it the court/committee's final decision...not the president's. Which in essence is what they want and the way it should be.