Re: Civil Rights End In Canada

In article <mmuak1hvjhfvpgahs614q8ali0v8q7rl6k@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 01:52:25 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <iptmj1pl8fls5r1kr2q4pfnbb33dadopd5@xxxxxxx>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:23:38 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >>
> >> >In article <0i0lj1p29v760t9hnpkrjdsiqnliupmo86@xxxxxxx>,
> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:11:47 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
> >> >> bless us with the following wisdom:
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> >> >"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."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The Supreme Court -- which is, as you might be aware, is the court
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >generally makes final decisions about matters of federal law -- is
> >> >> >*not*
> >> >> >inferior to Congress.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you read a bit further you will see that the Supreme Court has
> >> >> original jurisdiction in only a small set of cases. In order to reach
> >> >> the Supreme Court most cases have to wind their way through the lower
> >> >> courts. That can't happen if the lower courts have no authority to
> >> >> hear those cases.
> >> >
> >> >This is true, but it's basically exploiting a loophole in the system.
> >> >The Supreme Court is very clearly intended to act as a check on the
> >> >power of the legislature. Manipulating the court system the way you
> >> >suggest makes that impossible.
> >>
> >> There's nothing in the Constitution that grants them this power. They
> >> took it for themselves.
> >
> >They have the power to hear all cases brought under the Constitution or
> >the laws of the United States (Article III, sec. 2). That includes cases
> >brought against the federal government.
> >
> >> >Anyway, as Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and others have established, the
> >> >Supreme Court can hear cases appealed directly from state courts. So
> >> >Congress really *would* have to ban state judges from hearing cases on
> >> >certain issues to prevent cases on those issues from ever reaching the
> >> >Supreme Court. You say below you wouldn't approve of that practice.
> >>
> >> This case was decided on a statute which, if Congress were of a mind
> >> to go whole hog on this, it could easily change.
> >
> >Maybe. It's unclear whether the Judiciary Act of 1789 clarified the
> >Court's powers in this respect or granted it new powers. In either case,
> >overturning a law that has stood for 216 years, that has become a basic
> >part of the structure of the government, would be an extremely radical
> >move. It's not too likely, actually, that the public would put up with
> >it.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >> Which is why no one but you was even talking about such a thing.
> >> >> However consider that while many of these issues start in state courts
> >> >> they almost all end up in federal ones. If they're forced to stay in
> >> >> state courts then the damage they cause is limited to the one state
> >> >> and its not inflicted upon the entire nation.
> >> >
> >> >Not necessarily, because of the 'full faith and credit' clause.
> >>
> >> Article. IV.
> >> Section. 1.
> >>
> >> Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
> >> Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
> >> Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
> >> Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
> >>
> >> Again notice that Congress has the power to decide what the effect of
> >> each instance will be. Its within Congress' power to simply say that
> >> no state has to recognize another's public Acts, Records, and judicial
> >> Proceedings.
> >> Are you about to say that it doesn't mean that?
> >> I have an Indiana gun carrying permit. That's definitely a part of
> >> 'public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings'. However its not
> >> recognized as valid by every other state because Congress gave states
> >> the power to reject other states' carry permits in the Gun Control Act
> >> of 1934.
> >
> >Congress can do this, but it has to do it explicitly. Congress does not
> >always move particularly fast, so there's plenty of room here for
> >trouble to crop up.
>
> The checks and balances built into the Constitution are largely
> balancing ambition against ambition as the Federalist Paper frequently
> put it.
> Since the other branches are lead by a small group their ambitions are
> easily coalesced. The Founding Fathers knew that within Congress their
> would always be numerous factions pitting their ambitions against one
> another. This made them feel safe giving it greater powers as they
> knew that it would take a particularly outrageous act to get them to
> act in unison to counter it.

Except, it doesn't really work out that way with the modern two-party
system.

--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.