NATION

PASSWORD

Military ban on gay service declared unconstitutional

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:01 am

Bluth Corporation wrote:
Neo Art wrote:the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.


What injunction?

No judge has actually ordered the federal government to cease operating under this policy. A single court has merely held (rightly so) that it finds this policy invalid and therefore will not uphold it. That does not prevent another court, at the same level, from disagreeing and upholding the policy.


Um. Technically, no injunction has been entered yet, but it will be shortly -- that is the whole point of the ruling. I haven't finished reading the 86-page decision yet, but both the press accounts and the opinion are quite clear that an injunction is going to be issued. From page 2 (the first actual page after the cover) of the decision (86p pdf):
Plaintiff [the Log Cabin Republicans] is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act.

And from the last page, the final paragraphs read:
... Plaintiff has demonstrated it is entited to the relief sought on behalf of its members, a judicial declaration that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act violates the Fifth and First Amendments, and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Judgment, including a Permanent Injunction, consistent with the terms of this Memorandum Opinion, no later than September 16, 2010. Defendants may submit objections to the form of the Proposed Judgment no later than seven days after Plaintiff submits its Proposed Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERDED.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:10 am

greed and death wrote:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/federal-judge-declares-us-military-ban-on-openly-gay-service-members-unconstitutional-.html


Wow, This good news.
So what thinks NSG.

I would say that it is inevitable that the so-called DADT policy would never work. I just wished Obama could speed up its demise if he can.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Don't destroy democracy just to keep teh gays out!

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:57 am

Militsia wrote:The military should ideally be outside the courts and lawmakers jurisdiction. The military have their own laws and their own courts. Treating the armed forces as any other employeer like McDonalds is a disgrace.


1. You have things all confused. Private employers like McDonalds aren't required to comply with the Constitution. The military is a branch of the government. It is therefore subject to the Constitution.

2. Although the military has its own laws and court systems and is given great deference in running its own affairs, the extreme you suggest is downright scary, undemocratic, and un-American. Civilian control of the military is a basic principle fundamental to our Constitution and that of free societies. See, e.g., Wikipedia: Civilian control of the military; U.S. Department of Defense: Why Civilian Control of the Military?; Michael F. Cairo, Democracy Papers: Civilian Control of the Military, U.S. Department of State International Information Programs; "Civil-Military Relations in a Democracy," Issues of Democracy: Electronic Journals of the U.S. Information Agency Vol.2 No.3 (July 1997) (33p pdf); Richard H. Kohn, An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military, American Diplomacy (1997); Edward R. Taylor, Command in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Civil-Military Affairs (115 p pdf), United States Navy Postgraduate School thesis. (1998).
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
New Wallonochia
Envoy
 
Posts: 277
Founded: Jun 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby New Wallonochia » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:13 am

greed and death wrote:You weren't in the service were you.
Half the time we are either getting action or bragging about getting action.


Whether it actually happened or not.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 129155
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:16 am

New Wallonochia wrote:
greed and death wrote:You weren't in the service were you.
Half the time we are either getting action or bragging about getting action.


Whether it actually happened or not.

Soldiers aren't known for letting facts get in the way of a good sex story.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48625
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:31 am

Bluth Corporation wrote:
Neo Art wrote:the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.


What injunction?

No judge has actually ordered the federal government to cease operating under this policy. A single court has merely held (rightly so) that it finds this policy invalid and therefore will not uphold it. That does not prevent another court, at the same level, from disagreeing and upholding the policy.

My understand is this results in an injunction to cease enforcement of the law. Such as if a district court found drug laws unconstitutional, it would place an injunction to have the federal government stop enforcement of the law.

A declaration of unconstitutional normally implies some sort of injunction against the action.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48625
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:33 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Bluth Corporation wrote:
Neo Art wrote:the federal government's jurisdiction is trans-district. An injunction issued against the federal government is an injunction issued against the federal government.


What injunction?

No judge has actually ordered the federal government to cease operating under this policy. A single court has merely held (rightly so) that it finds this policy invalid and therefore will not uphold it. That does not prevent another court, at the same level, from disagreeing and upholding the policy.


Um. Technically, no injunction has been entered yet, but it will be shortly -- that is the whole point of the ruling. I haven't finished reading the 86-page decision yet, but both the press accounts and the opinion are quite clear that an injunction is going to be issued. From page 2 (the first actual page after the cover) of the decision (86p pdf):
Plaintiff [the Log Cabin Republicans] is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act.

And from the last page, the final paragraphs read:
... Plaintiff has demonstrated it is entited to the relief sought on behalf of its members, a judicial declaration that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act violates the Fifth and First Amendments, and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement.

Plaintiff shall submit a Proposed Judgment, including a Permanent Injunction, consistent with the terms of this Memorandum Opinion, no later than September 16, 2010. Defendants may submit objections to the form of the Proposed Judgment no later than seven days after Plaintiff submits its Proposed Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERDED.

Likely a stay pending appeal though.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Holy Paradise
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1111
Founded: Apr 04, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Holy Paradise » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:48 am

Ifreann wrote:Progress :) . Good for America. And better, we get to see conservatives flailing desperately, grasping at every straw to find some way the court can be wrong and they can keep oppressing gays.

Actually, I know a fair number of conservatives who thought DADT was completely stupid (which I believe as well).

From all standpoints, I can't see a real downside to ending DADT. I understand there are some theoretical arguments against it (namely the troop morale/unit cohesion one) but they are such flimsy arguments that they wilt when debated against.
Moderate conservative, Roman Catholic

yep

User avatar
Holy Paradise
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1111
Founded: Apr 04, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Holy Paradise » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:54 am

Holy Paradise wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Progress :) . Good for America. And better, we get to see conservatives flailing desperately, grasping at every straw to find some way the court can be wrong and they can keep oppressing gays.

Actually, I know a fair number of conservatives who thought DADT was completely stupid (which I believe as well).

From all standpoints, I can't see a real downside to ending DADT. I understand there are some theoretical arguments against it (namely the troop morale/unit cohesion one) but they are such flimsy arguments that they wilt when debated against.

Heck, even the Catholic forum I visit regularly, a very, very conservative site, has been mostly indifferent or approving of the strike down of DADT.
Moderate conservative, Roman Catholic

yep

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48625
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:55 am

Lackadaisical2 wrote:Thank God the GOP legally challenged DADT, since the dems apparently couldn't do it. (/silly partisanship)


They are ideally the ones to challenge it.
Right now the log cabin types, think the GOP is just neglectful of their views.
IF the GOP turned on them and showed themselves as hostile the GOP would lose their votes in a most crucial election.
There will almost be nothing on the matter from the GOP I reckon because the GOP can not afford to lose those votes.
Their followers wont know to be mad of course because the GOP and faux wont pitch a fit for them.
Where as if a democrat based or leaning group had done this the GOP could have gotten votes from the religious nutters by foaming at the mouth.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
The Parkus Empire
Post Czar
 
Posts: 43030
Founded: Sep 12, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Parkus Empire » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:33 am

Ifreann wrote:
New Wallonochia wrote:
greed and death wrote:You weren't in the service were you.
Half the time we are either getting action or bragging about getting action.


Whether it actually happened or not.

Soldiers aren't known for letting facts get in the way of a good sex story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVjnjtqnPGU
American Orthodox: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Jesus is Allah ن
Burkean conservative
Homophobic
Anti-feminist sexist
♂Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know men and women aren't the same.♀

User avatar
Euroslavia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 7743
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Euroslavia » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:14 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
Urcea wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
Grave_n_idle wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:I'm not arguing in opposition to the Constitution. It doesn't state that marriage is a right guaranteed to individuals...


Sure it does. Just, not specifically, and with enumeration.


I can just as well say that the regulation of marriage is a right guaranteed to the states.


It isn't?


Some people (*cough*libtards*cough*) think it isn't.


Knock it off. If you can't have a discussion without tossing in an insult, don't bother even posting.
BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

BRAVE ENOUGH

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:17 pm

Greater Americania wrote:I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired. The very concept of judicial review should be reevaluated Constitutionally and edited so that Courts will not have the authority to make decisions like this. The Courts are becoming as though a legislature of their own. All they have to do is scream "unconstitutional" and they can enforce whatever they please.

Marbury v. Madison is a bitch, eh?

Deal with it.
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Cobhanglica
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1813
Founded: Feb 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cobhanglica » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:57 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Notes: 1. I have not yet read the decision or the entirety of this thread. I am simply replying to the point raised by the posts below because they are commonly raised on NSG & they piss me off.

2. I apologize for the length of this post, but, as I said, this pushes my buttons.


Greater Americania wrote:
Geniasis wrote:
Greater Americania wrote:I'm getting damn tired of these overactive courts using far more authority than they should have acquired. The very concept of judicial review should be reevaluated Constitutionally and edited so that Courts will not have the authority to make decisions like this. The Courts are becoming as though a legislature of their own. All they have to do is scream "unconstitutional" and they can enforce whatever they please.

I don't see what the problem is. This decision is both a victory of idealism and pragmatism.

I firmly disagree. Anyways, this sort of decision should never pass through the judicial branch. The role of the Courts should be less involved in politics. It's getting to the point where you liberals are abusing the system by simply avoiding the legislature, where you'ld never be able to pass your legislation, and simply heading the Courts where you can forge some sort or arbitrary declaration of unconstitutionality for whatever policy you're opposing. This needs to be put to a stop.

Cobhanglica wrote:More autocratic government by the courts under the premise of "constitutionality"; despite the fact that such decisions basically amount to the Court rewriting the Constitution to suit its views. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that could possibly be construed as giving gays an unalienable right to serve openly in the military.

1. Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate liberty and equal protection under the law? Seriously, the whole idea behind modern free states (particularly the U.S. constitutional Republic) is that we form government to protect our rights. Direct democracy does not necessarily protect rights (something the Founders of the U.S. discussed at length). A way of protecting rights is placing structural limits on the power of the majority. A bill of rights is such a limit. So are the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Contrary to your whining about judicial tyranny or the importance of the legislature, fundamental rights and equal protection of the law do not depend on the whim of majority opinion or the outcome of elections:
The Supreme Court explained this in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943):
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Despite this being a nearly 70-year old precedent, some right-wingers have rejected it as judicial activism. Well, guess what? Here is the same sentiment from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take, that are favored by the majority, is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for 200 years.

See also: Declaration of Independence (emphasis added):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (emphasis added):
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

2. It was U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips's sworn duty under the Constitution to exercise the power of judicial review and declare void any properly challenged law that would violate the Constitution. See generally Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall explained this duty at length in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The unanimous Court in Marbury declared: "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" and "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." Thus, the courts must void any law that violates the Constitution.

That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's The Federalist #78. Hamilton states: "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Hamilton further states: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Thus, again, it is the duty of judges to nullify unconstitutional laws.

The same sentiment is echoed in SCOTUS's unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958):
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown v. Board of Education case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

The judiciary's enforcement of the Constitution by voiding unconstitutional legislation is the opposite of tyranny, as Hamilton explained in The Federalist #78:
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

3. Here is a more lengthy (and, I afraid, a bit repetitive) explanation of how judicial review is an express part of the Constitution and central to the system of checks and balances that protects our freedom:
A. Judicial review is the very essence of the existence of the Supreme Court (and "inferior" federal courts) and is clearly provided for in our Constitution. See generally Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. This is spelled out at length in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) and in The Federalist #78.

B. Where exactly in the Constitution is judicial review found? Well, let's quickly note that Article VI tells us that: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Let us also note that Article I and Article II fail to give final power to interpret the Constitution to either the executive or legislative branches of government.

So, let's now turn to Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ..." It is inherent in the idea of judicial power that the Court has the power to interpret law. As Justice Marshall declared in Marbury, "It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That this was intended by the Founders to be so read is confirmed by Federalist #78: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

One also can look to the overall scheme of the Constitution, particularly the setting up of checks and balances. The judicial power to interpret law is the judiciary's primary check on the other branches. Without it, the system of checks and balances fails. Regardless, in Article III, Section 2, we are informed: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..." Thus, any doubt that the Court has the power in both Law and Equity to rule on cases involving the meaning of the Constitution is removed. Such cases are emphatically within the judicial Power.

Finally, in Article III, Section 2, we learn: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. " Thus, the judicial power includes the jurisdiction over both fact and law questions in cases arising under the Constitution. Again, the Court has the power to interpret law, including the Supreme Law of the Land.

C. Where did the concept of judicial review come from? Judicial review did not spring full-blown from the brain of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury. The concept had been long known. The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. Judicial review in the English common law originated at least as early as Dr. Bonham's Case in 1610. Judicial review was utilized in a much more limited form by Privy Council review of colonial legislation and its validity under the colonial charters. In 1761 James Otis, in the Writs of Assistance Case in Boston, argued that British officers had no power under the law to use search warrants that did not stipulate the object of the search. Otis based his challenge to the underlying act of Parliament on Bonham's Case, the English Constitution, and the principle of “natural equity.” John Adams subsequently adopted this reasoning to defend the rights of Americans by appeal to a law superior to parliamentary enactment. And there were several instances known to the Founders of state court invalidation of state legislation as inconsistent with state constitutions.

Practically all of the Founders who expressed an opinion on the issue in the Constitutional Convention appear to have assumed and welcomed the existence of court review of the constitutionality of legislation, and I have already noted the power of judicial review was explicity set forth in The Federalist Papers. Similar statements affirming the power of judicial review were made by Founders duing the state ratifying conventions. In enacting the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress explicitly made provision for the exercise of the power, and in other debates questions of constitutionality and of judicial review were prominent.

And, in the 200 years since Marbury, the power of judicial review has been accepted and further expounded. If it were truly a mere power-grab, it could have long ago been nullified. Objections to judicial review motivated by a dislike for a specific line of caselaw are both historically inaccurate and rather tedious.

D. Is judicial review valid? Another case you might check out that confirms the Court's power of judicial review is the unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958):
As this case reaches us it raises questions of the highest importance to the maintenance of our federal system of government. It necessarily involves a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution. Specifically it involves actions by the Governor and Legislature of Arkansas upon the premise that they are not bound by our holding in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. That holding was that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids States to use their governmental powers to bar children on racial grounds from attending schools where there is state participation through any arrangement, management, funds or property. We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.
. . .
However, we should answer the premise of the actions of the Governor and Legislature that they are not bound by our holding in the Brown case. It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397 -398.

E. More on the history of judicial review. I've already established that judicial review was not a new idea and had existed under common law. Here is more from Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Powers of the Federal Court 1801-1835, 49 U. Chi. L. Rev. 646, 655-656 (1982):
The Privy Council had occasionally applied the ultra vires principle to set aside legislative acts contravening municipal and colonial charters. State courts had set aside state statutes under constitutions no more explicit about judicial review than the federal. The Supreme Court itself had measured a state law against a state constitution in Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), and had struck down another under the supremacy clause in Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796); in both cases the power of judicial review was expressly affirmed. Even Acts of Congress had been struck down by federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court had reviewed the constitutionality of a federal statute in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796). Justice James Iredell had expressly asserted this power both in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), and in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), and [Justice] Chase had acknowledged it in Cooper. In the [Consitutional] Convention, moreover, both proponents and opponents fo the proposed Council of Revision had recognized that the courts would review the validity of congresssional legislation, and Alexander Hamilton had proclaimed the same doctrine in The Federalist.

F. Also, I'll note the following from A. Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch 15-16 (1965):
[It] is as clear as such matters can be that the Framers of the Constitution specifically expected that the federal courts would assume a power -- of whatever exact dimensions --to pass on the constitutionality of actions of the Congress and the President, as well as of the several states. Moreover, not even a colorable showing of decisive historical evidence to the contrary can be made. Nor can it be maintained that the language of the Constitution is compelling the other way.

(NOTE: In writing these points, particularly the overview of some of the history of judicial review, I've relied on numerous sources beyond the original sources linked above. I wouldn't claim to have known all of the above off the top of my head.)

4. The power of a single U.S. District Court Judge to issue an injunction against an unconstitutional law is not only constitutional and not undemocratic, but is also expressly approved by Congress -- dating back to the Founders themselves.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides U.S. District Courts with the power to issue injunctions. The Congress has authorized the federal judiciary to prescribe the rules of practice, procedure, and evidence for the federal courts, subject to the ultimate legislative right of the Congress to reject, modify, or defer any of the rules. The authority and procedures for promulgating rules are set forth in the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2077. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then approved by the United States Congress. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. See, e.g., Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (Oct. 2010); Wikipedia: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Judiciary Act of 1793, passed by the Second U.S. Congress, included the power of federal courts to issue injunctions. See, e.g., Text of Judiciary Act of 1793; Wikipedia: Judiciary Act of 1793. Section 5 of the Act specifically provides for a single judge to issue injunctions. Even prior to the act, U.S. District Court judges already had injunctive power, adopted from English common law. [I'll fill this in more later if you really wish to contest the point.]

IN SUM, quit whining about judicial tyranny simply because a court rules a way you wish it hadn't. It is utterly infantile nonsense.


What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly. And I'm calling it judicial tyranny because the court has a long (and I mean LONG) history of changing the "meaning" of the Constitution to suit the views of its members. One court defends segregation, and another strikes it down. One strikes down the AAA, and another allows Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause to control just about every aspect of economic life. It's ridiculous.
Cobhanglica's top officials
President: George Rockwell
Sec. of Foreign Relations: Martin Lansing
Sec. of Defense: General James Arnold
Sec. of Trade: Henry Ford Smith


My Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.72

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:01 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American

User avatar
Strykla
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6538
Founded: Oct 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Strykla » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Well this sucks.
Lord Justice Clerk of the Classical Royalist Party, NSG Senate. Hail, Companion!

User avatar
Cobhanglica
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1813
Founded: Feb 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cobhanglica » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.
Cobhanglica's top officials
President: George Rockwell
Sec. of Foreign Relations: Martin Lansing
Sec. of Defense: General James Arnold
Sec. of Trade: Henry Ford Smith


My Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 4.72

User avatar
Mikedor
Minister
 
Posts: 2375
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikedor » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:05 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.

How does someone being openly gay endanger discipline and order?
Welcome to 1938.

I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.

User avatar
Geniasis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7531
Founded: Sep 28, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Geniasis » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:06 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.


And homosexuality disrupts that, does it?
Supporter of making [citation needed] the official NSG way to say "source?"

Myrensis wrote:I say turn it into a brothel, that way Muslims and Christians can be offended together.


DaWoad wrote:nah, she only fought because, as everyone knows, the brits can't make a decent purse to save their lives and she had a VERY important shopping trip coming up!


Reichskommissariat ost wrote:Women are as good as men , I dont know why they constantly whine about things.


Euronion wrote:because how dare me ever ever try to demand rights for myself, right men, we should just lie down and let the women trample over us, let them take awa our rights, our right to vote will be next just don't say I didn't warn ou

User avatar
Strykla
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6538
Founded: Oct 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Strykla » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:07 pm

Mikedor wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.

How does someone being openly gay endanger discipline and order?

Lots of people ave problems serving with gays. Squad beating shouldn't be ruled out, for example.
Lord Justice Clerk of the Classical Royalist Party, NSG Senate. Hail, Companion!

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48625
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:07 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly. And I'm calling it judicial tyranny because the court has a long (and I mean LONG) history of changing the "meaning" of the Constitution to suit the views of its members. One court defends segregation, and another strikes it down. One strikes down the AAA, and another allows Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause to control just about every aspect of economic life. It's ridiculous.


The law forbid talking about being gay, that is clearly a free speech issue.
The law did not provide for equal protection and due process of law. Creating issues with the 5th and 14th amendment. The military is more then a job it is a set of federal benefits, I personally will have extracted over 120,000 dollars over 5 years in educational benefits.

The judge in this case was actually very friendly to the military, all the federal government had to do was show that readiness in the military would be negatively affected. And the violation of those rights would have been upheld in this case. You see rights are not absolute, and can be denied if there is need. However the government was unable to show that and was refuted by the Log Cabin Republicans.

10 years ago DADT might have been upheld on the grounds it affected readiness, but today's military is different. The leadership has asked for this change, the common solider has asked for this change. It is time to move on past old ways of thinking.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:08 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.

British army doesn't seem to have any problems. Are you saying that American soldiers are so much worse than the redcoats that they can't rise above petty homophobia?

User avatar
Mikedor
Minister
 
Posts: 2375
Founded: Apr 24, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mikedor » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:08 pm

Strykla wrote:
Mikedor wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.

How does someone being openly gay endanger discipline and order?

Lots of people ave problems serving with gays. Squad beating shouldn't be ruled out, for example.

In which case the homophobes are the ones endangering discipline and order.
Welcome to 1938.

I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.

User avatar
Greed and Death
Post Czar
 
Posts: 48625
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:08 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:
Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Cobhanglica wrote:
What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly.

1st and 14th.
That seems pretty basic, I'm not even American


14th Amendment only applies to state infringements of rights. The 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but you also must take into consideration the fact that that right is already abridged by the military as it sees fit to ensure discipline and order.

It is abridged by the military when it affects readiness, this court found it does not affect readiness.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:09 pm

Cobhanglica wrote:What do you think we are, 5? Anyone with ANY education at all knows what judicial review is. I'm saying that in this case, the decision of the court is a load of BS because there is nothing in the Consitution that could be construed as forcing the military to permit gays to serve openly. And I'm calling it judicial tyranny because the court has a long (and I mean LONG) history of changing the "meaning" of the Constitution to suit the views of its members. One court defends segregation, and another strikes it down. One strikes down the AAA, and another allows Congress to stretch the Commerce Clause to control just about every aspect of economic life. It's ridiculous.

And it is in the Constitution. It's called the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth (although the ruling said something about the argument with that amendment being thrown out; I haven't finished reading it) Amendments.

Furthermore, just like in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the defendants failed to demonstrate how the State has a compelling interest in upholding this statute.

And furthermore still, DADT is clearly a content-based regulation. It's based solely on the doctrine of "gayz r teh ickyz."
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, An Alan Smithee Nation, Australian rePublic, Democratic Communist Federation, Dogmeat, Lake Sailsburg, North German Realm, Pasong Tirad, Risottia, Shrillland, Slongs, Synapse X, The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord, The Xenopolis Confederation, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads