View Single Post
  #24  
Old March 27th 05, 10:59 AM
The Beast
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



--

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article t, Bob

Whiteside
says...


"J" wrote in message
roups.com...
I think the fifty state models could actually help with 14th

amendment
challenges to unfair CS awards. Georgia just declared their

guidelines
unconstitutional, maybe other states could follow? What about a
challenge based on equal protection because state formulas differ so
much? Just a thought....

14th amendment challenges to CS law have been tried repeatedly using
different legal tactical approaches. While there has been some success

in
getting CS law ruled unconstitutional at the trial court level, the
appellate process has consistently overturned the trial court judges.

====
In *state* appellate courts--And it does not necessarily follow that

federal
courts would rule similarly.
====


That is true. Read Mark Levin's book "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court
is Destroying America" for a real eye opener on how the U.S. Supreme Court
has overstepped its constitutional authority and imposed personal

preferencewww,
policies on our nation regarding issues like marriage/divorce that are not
even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

So the question I have is simple - Why should five supreme court justices

be
allowed to rule on a state rights issue like marriage/divorce involving

only
one state and have their decision become the law of the land for all

states?



I have often thought there should be an amendment that requires the congress
to make a law after the scotus rules. IOW's scotus rules on an issue,then
the ruling would be taken up by the congress,debated, and laws changed or
created based on the ruling rather than the courts decision be followed as
law.Or maybe more congressional oversight should be applied After all, this
is a representitve republic,right? Not to mention the fact that the judicial
branch was to be the weakest branch...It seems to me that a system like that
would quell the *appearence* of judicial activism...I didnt say it was a
good idea...
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all
arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that
principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--Herbert Spencer
theelectricguns.com