something about bush's speach erked me on a more basic level

[ngcsubutterbar]

he said (in relationg to the 'intitution of marriage') that for as long as {federal, supreme court type} judges make their own arbitrary decisions, marriage will have to be protected in the constitution.


Other than the fact, that marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution (maybe he wants to submit an amendment telling people who they can and cannot marry who knows) He said 'as long as judges keep enforcing their arbitrary decisions.' Excuse me, but isn't that what their job is. To interpret laws based on precedent and 'current' (as in a 10-30 year period feeling )feelings towards the matter? WTH was bush thinking?


Now before you flame or just blindly defend him, this isn't about me disliking what bush has done, and his track record. This is a basic process in our government he wants to throw out maybe, or get around somehow?

[TALLON]

He said that if these "radical" judges continue to make these arbitrary decisions for the people of their state against the will of the people, then our only remedy will be constitutional amendment.

Not flaming you, just get either the quote right or the premise...you got neither.

[ngcsubutterbar]

radical. judges are either appointed or elected. Either by the people, or appointed from elected officials elected by the people. If they want them out they vote them out, apparantly 'the people' didn't vote them out, so they abide by their decisions.


judges jobs are to interpret laws, and when neccessary strike them down as being 'wrong'.
"declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. "

It seems to me that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided for their state, not others states.

_________
this is what I assume he is talking about

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
November 18, 2003

President Defends Sanctity of Marriage
Statement by the President




Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

###
-------------------------

----------------------------------
btw, this is what he said


A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

----------------------------------



I don't even see the word 'radical' in there? But like I said this isn't about bush bashing, this is about the basics in which our country is ran.


(BTW, any activist is a good thing (be it something I agree with or not, I will still support their speech), it shows a free world)

[TALLON]

If I (john q. taxpayer) vote a judge in today and tomorrow he renders a decision that I don't agree with, have I been consulted on it...was the decision taken to a vote by the people> NO! Judges make decisions every day without consulting the people of the state in which they serve and the populace has no recourse until the judge's term is up. But the decision stands. Make sense?

[kenny J]

Maybe Bush is shoring up support from the religious RIGHT?

President sets aside $1.5bn to boost marriage

[ngcsubutterbar]

That can be transfered into any elected office. Even if you didn't vote for the person that 'won' that office. Just like I can ***** about what bush is/is not doing, but I can't do 'anything' about it until 'I vote hime out'.


The reason I brought this is up, is because what his words said it 'seemed' like he was going to try to enforce 'his' arbitary thoughts on the entire nation, by maybe trying to pass an ammendment to the constitution.

[TALLON]

The institution of Marriage is not an arbitrary concept. It is defined as a lifelong union between a man and a woman. (period)

If you want to "marry" your buddy, then move to Vermont. Problem Solved.

[ngcsubutterbar]

lifelong union. lol over half of all marriages end in divorce in this country (my parents included). Just one or even two generations ago, to be safe, divorce was something that involved scandall and shame, now its as easy to divorce someone as it is to marry them. Definitions change with the times. It was a different definition in ancient times, for different people, than it is 'today' . Hell it used to be defined that women were property, and it was STILL like that up till the early 20th century in 'this' country. In Russia, when two people married the new grooms father in law gave his new son in law a whip to keep the wife 'in line'. That was their definition of marriage. Some peoples deffinition of marriage include more than one wife. That was their definition of marriage. Things that are wrong can and will change given time. Its a different definition for many different cultures (some that LIVE in this country) Thats why the courts are there. To interpret and keep in check the other two branches of government.



I'm not trying to tell people that they have to be 'open' towards marraige, that would be what I'm speaking against in the above few posts. I'm talking about a basic philosophy of a 'free nation'.

[TALLON]

Let me clarify my position:

MY DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE: A lifelong union between a MAN and a WOMAN. You know, two people capable of procreation. Call me old fashioned. If you want a divorce, go for it. If you want to ask your delegates to pass more laws to make it easier to get a divorce, go for it. If you want to marry your buddy, go for it. As a taxpayer, I oppose contributing any of my tax dollars to support anyone involved in an alternate lifestyle/civil union and I will vote for candidates that share my view on this.

[ngcsubutterbar]

okeday.

[rob1982]

The judges who are making these decisions are federal judges and they are appointed not voted on. You can't get rid of a supreme court judge once they're in the court without a major reason to impeach them. It would be nearly impossible. The only problem I have with the whole thing is that I feel the judges are letting religion come into play and not the letter of the law. I think that everyone knows what the bible says about this and follows that when by law a person has a freedom of religion and can choose a different religion that may allow their marriage. Just my .02

[ngcsubutterbar]

if this President takes action to preserve the democratic system and restrict the ability of a single person or court to change the entire nation's laws, then I support him 100%.
------------------------------
('that' is called a totalitarian/dictatorship govt-read below I know you probably didn't mean it like that)
Clinton v. New York City <thats a good an important one for what I'm talking about>
Marburry V Madison
Brown v Board of Ed Kansas
Rowe v. Wade
Miranda v Arizona
plessy v. fergussen
Korematsu v. United States (that one is deffinatly a 'bad decision' but it hasn't been overturned yet, and is probably going to be shown as precidence if any of the guys in GUATMO try to sue for 'jailing a people')
bah they're all listed here
good or bad, thats what the courts are there for, to make sure laws can be changed, overrided, abolished,etc if needed by 'one person' or a small group of people.


However, I'll take what you said in the spirit of how you said it. State Supreme courts, I seriously doubt the appointments are for life. Thats where this issue bush is talking about sprang up from.

[rob1982]

The supreme court can't write any laws. They can only decide if a case is unconstitutional or if a previous judgement is not following the guidelines of the constitution. Only the President and the legislature can write and vote on laws. The President can't guarantee a law to pass because it takes the majority vote of congress. Even if the President veto's the bill congress can still vote to pass it anyway. The Supreme Court CAN NOT write a law. Also, if the President tries to restrict the strength of the courts by limiting their ability to rule he could kiss his career goodbye. The court has the power it does because of the system of checks and balances. This was put in by the original members of congress and is there for a very important reason. Without the courts having their power then the other branches could get away with a lot more than they do.

[ngcsubutterbar]

but 'that' is what those dark robed people are charged to do, reinforce the ultimate law of the US, the Constitution.

The most important changes do come from 'minority' groups. Universal Sufferage, True civil rights, USC 1983 (I say this to the fact that police states have a history of ruining their respective nations, without that law, this nation could have become a police nation) etc.

Besides, in the USSC, The president appoints, the congress approves. The people elect the president an the congress. It sucks, hey I hate some decisions both are doing, but thats how it works. There is your check and balance back on the courts.

[lawdawg]

Rob, The Supreme Court writes law every time they decide a case; its called "case law". Basically their "interpretation" of the constitution becomes law, or a certain case might involve acts/behaviors not yet defined in the law books.