A question about the US Gov't...

I really don't want this to become political, or to talk about one party or candidate or another. This is just a question I had, and would like an honest answer to.

Let's say it's 2060. The Nike Party (so named because much of their platform involves sneakers. Either way, the political parties have become extremely polarized and partisan in all their votes. ) has seized control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. At the same time, a number of the Supreme Court justices have recently retired or passed away, allowing the Nike Party President to appoint a staggering 5 justices to the Supreme Court. The Nike Party now has overwhelming control of the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of the government.

Is there anything that would prevent the Supreme Court from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting or just plain throwing out the Constitution? Let's say that the Nike-heavy court overturns a number of decisions: Roe v. Wade, they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that only militia/army/police can own guns, they say that the 1st Amendment DOESN'T apply to speech, religion or assembly that they don't like, tell us that ANY naked picture of ANYTHING is pornography, force the teaching of Creationism only in schools, give the US vote to all citizens of the world, repeal all term limits, etc... Is there any kind of check-and-balance that would prevent this kind of one-party takeover, besides voting them out? (and I know that voting them out wouldn't work for the SC.)

I want to put a quick disclaimer on this. I tried to make my fictional court decisions completely fictitious and even a little silly, to keep people from implying that I'm talking about one party or another. I'M NOT. This is just an honest question I had about the US Gov't, and I didn't know the answer. Discuss.

Yes, they could even call a new Constitutional Convention.

This shit isn't set in stone.

overthebow said:

This shit isn't set in stone.

Click to expand...

Much more likely that the majority currently in office will be thrown out.

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

MeeMie said:

Much more likely that the majority currently in office will be thrown out.

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

Click to expand...

God you're a fucking moron.

MeeMie said:

Much more likely that the majority currently in office will be thrown out.

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

Click to expand...

Oh......my......god.......

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/james-madison-father-of-the-constitution/

Bob Ellis said:

"[Glen] Beck pointed out that modern liberals view the Constitution and our freedoms exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us."

Click to expand...

Congrats, MeeMie - you're officially Lit's most pathetic political poster.

zipman said:

God you're a fucking moron.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about you. In fact, I'm disgusted with you.

How do you feel about the Constitution of the United States being thrown out, as the other asshole up there suggested could be done?

How about instead of flyby namecalling you actually contribute to the discussion of an issue.

RoryN said:

Oh......my......god.......

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/james-madison-father-of-the-constitution/



Congrats, MeeMie - you're officially Lit's most pathetic political poster.

Click to expand...

ahahaha

good catch.

RoryN said:

Oh......my......god.......

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/james-madison-father-of-the-constitution/



Congrats, MeeMie - you're officially Lit's most pathetic political poster.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Rory, GREAT GOOGLING JOB! What's you're fucking point on the issue?

Would you support having the Constitution of the United States thrown out?

Or, do you just want to play google detective thinking you're a hero for accomplishing something anyone could have achieved in less than a minute.

And, pull your pants up, you look like a jerk off.


...

rosco rathbone said:

ahahaha

good catch.

Click to expand...

Another idiot chimes in.

Reading this thread reduced me to hysterics.

It is almost like performance art, except it is funny.

horgasm said:

Is there anything that would prevent the Supreme Court from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting or just plain throwing out the Constitution? Let's say that the Nike-heavy court overturns a number of decisions: Roe v. Wade, they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that only militia/army/police can own guns, they say that the 1st Amendment DOESN'T apply to speech, religion or assembly that they don't like, tell us that ANY naked picture of ANYTHING is pornography, force the teaching of Creationism only in schools, give the US vote to all citizens of the world, repeal all term limits, etc... Is there any kind of check-and-balance that would prevent this kind of one-party takeover, besides voting them out? (and I know that voting them out wouldn't work for the SC.)

Click to expand...

The biggest check on the elected branches is, as you said, the vote of the people. As far as the judicial branch goes, federal judges can be impeached. But there's a big difference between "re-interpreting" the Constitution, which happens all the time; and "revising" it (only an amendment can change the wording of the Constitution), let alone ignoring it or throwing it out. The people usually have their say if the judiciary gets too far ahead of the electorate and takes it out on the party perceived to be responsible, although we had a Supreme Court choose a president 10 years ago (something unmentioned in the Constitution) and no one seemed to care all that much.

And of course, the American people through their representatives can always call for a new constitutional convention.

OMG! It's a LOONIE PARADE!

MeeMie said:

Another idiot chimes in.

Click to expand...

Good morning, clownschool.

Did you google that, or think it up yourself?

ahahahaha

overthebow said:

Reading this thread reduced me to hysterics.

It is almost like performance art, except it is funny.

Click to expand...

The meltdown is entertaining, too.

And I love his grammar. No wonder he doesn't go off script very often...

MeeMie said:

Yeah, Rory, GRAT GOOGLING JOB!...do you just want to play google detective thinking you're a hero for accomplishing something anyone could have achieved in less than a minute.

Click to expand...

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait...wait. You're chastising me for using Google?

Apparently, if you didn't use Google, you wouldn't exist!

RoryN said:

The meltdown is entertaining, too.

And I love his grammar. No wonder he doesn't go off script very often...

Click to expand...

I already assumed that anything from him that wasn't addressed directly to one of us or one of our posts, or didn't have a misspelling of a word like "great," had to be Googled.

Reminds me of how Ronald Reagan, our "Great Communicator," used to have not just substantive talking points written out for him on index cards, but even his small talk. If you asked MeeMie "Wanna fuck?" he'd probably have to check to see if there's any D. H. Lawrence online in order to answer.

Wrong Element said:

If you asked MeeMie "Wanna fuck?" he'd probably have to check to see if there's any D. H. Lawrence online in order to answer.

Click to expand...

*spew*

horgasm said:

Is there anything that would prevent the Supreme Court from completely ignoring, revising, re-interpreting or just plain throwing out the Constitution? Discuss.

Click to expand...

overthebow said:

Yes, they could even call a new Constitutional Convention.

This shit isn't set in stone.

Click to expand...

MeeMie said:

Much more likely that the majority currently in office will be thrown out.

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

Click to expand...

Finally, actual discussion about the issue.
(cutting out the background noise)

Wrong Element said:

The biggest check on the elected branches is, as you said, the vote of the people. As far as the judicial branch goes, federal judges can be impeached. But there's a big difference between "re-interpreting" the Constitution, which happens all the time; and "revising" it (only an amendment can change the wording of the Constitution), let alone ignoring it or throwing it out. The people usually have their say if the judiciary gets too far ahead of the electorate and takes it out on the party perceived to be responsible, although we had a Supreme Court choose a president 10 years ago (something unmentioned in the Constitution) and no one seemed to care all that much.

And of course, the American people through their representatives can always call for a new constitutional convention.

Click to expand...

Of course, this is exactly what Liberals want to see happen. In fact, the United States is on the threshold of danger from this very threat. Our Constitution is under assault.





U.S. Two States Away from Constitutional Convention


Thirty-two states have already called for a Constitutional Convention (allegedly to add a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution). 34 states are all that is required, and then Congress MUST convene a Convention.

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction. And it's a safe bet that those who hate this nation, and all She stands for, are waiting to pounce upon this opportunity to re-write the Constitution.

Certainly all loyal Americans want government constrained by a balanced budget. However calling a Constitutional Convention risks a revolutionary change in our form of government. The ultimate outcome will likely be a new constitution; one that could revise the 1st Amendment into a government-controlled privilege, replace the 2nd Amendment with a "collective" right to self-defense, and abolish the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendments, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Additions could include the non-existent Separation of Church and State, the "right" to abortion and euthanasia, eliminate the Article 1 restriction to the coinage of real money or even eliminate gun or property rights, and much, much more. So what may look like a good idea to the legislators driving this effort - all Republicans - will certainly make them prey to the law of unintended consequences - at the very least insuring the U.S. will never have a balanced budget - while destroying what vestiges of liberty the government still allows.

You may have heard that some of those 32 states have voted to rescind their calls. This is true. However, under Article V of the Constitution, Congress must call a Constitutional Convention whenever 2/3 (or 34) of the states apply. The Constitution makes no provision for rescission. They can then challenge the other states' rescissions in the courts while going ahead with the Convention. Congress alone then decides whether state legislatures or state conventions ratify proposed amendments.

You may have heard the states can control the subject of any convention. In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a Convention. Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself; if it were not so they would not be able to change the U.S. Constitution.

We have not had a Constitutional Convention since 1787. That Convention was called to make small changes in the Articles of Confederation. As a point of fact, several states first passed resolutions requiring their delegates discuss amendments to the Articles ONLY, forbidding even discussion of foundational changes. However, following the delegates' first agreement that their meetings be in secret, their second act was to agree to debate those state restrictions and to declare the Articles of Confederation NULL AND VOID! They also changed the ratification process, reducing the required states' approval from 100% to 75%. There is no reason to believe a contemporary Constitutional Convention wouldn't further "modify" Article V restrictions to suit its purpose.

As former Chief Justice Warren Burger said in a letter written to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum:
"...there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress..."

We were blessed in 1787; the Constitutional Convention delegates were the leaders of a freedom movement that had just cleansed this land of tyranny.

Today's corrupt politicians and judges would like nothing better than the ability to legally ignore the Constitution - to modify its "problematic" provisions to reflect the philosophical and socials mores of our contemporary society.

Our uniquely and purely American concept of individual rights, endowed by our Creator, would be quickly set aside as an anachronistic relic of a bygone era; replaced by new "collective" rights, awarded and enforced by government for the "common good".

Jesus Christ. It's like watching a kid with Tourette's.

SeanH said:

Jesus Christ. It's like watching a kid with Tourette's.

Click to expand...

Says the heroin addict and alcoholic.

MeeMie said:

Says the heroin addict and alcoholic.

Click to expand...

LMAO. Keep getting your "facts" from Beck and Cade, MeeMie. You're more fun than a Playstation.

MeeMie said:

Says the heroin addict and alcoholic.

Click to expand...

Even if that was true, he's still more coherent than you on a bad day. You once again got busted for using another person's thoughts as your own.

MeeMie said:

I feel the same way about you. In fact, I'm disgusted with you.

How do you feel about the Constitution of the United States being thrown out, as the other asshole up there suggested could be done?

How about instead of flyby namecalling you actually contribute to the discussion of an issue.

Click to expand...

Why don't you find a cut and paste about the evils of Nike, because that's about the extent of your ability to have a "discussion" you idiot.

Thank you for proving my point.

Liberals are unable to discuss issues. Instead, they resort to namecalling, insults, finger pointing, and of course BLAME BUSH!

MeeMie said:

Thank you for proving my point.

Liberals are unable to discuss issues. Instead, they resort to namecalling, insults, finger pointing, and of course BLAME BUSH!

Click to expand...

Did you actually read the initial post?