Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said:

Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased
differently, from whence does the authority of said court come?

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?

When has it done so?

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said:

Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased
differently, from whence does the authority of said court come?

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?


The Constitution can only be amended according to the procedure set forth in
the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional for any court to amend the Constitution.

Wilbur Hubbard

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?

When has it done so?

Frequently, going all the way back to Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse
Cases,
and Lochner v. NY, running through the reapportionment cases, the various
abortion cases, Lawrence v. Texas (holding that the 14th Amendment created
a
right to commit sodomy), and on and on. Among recent cases the dead
giveaway
is reference to finding some newly created right hiding in the "penumbra"
or
being an "emanation" of the 14th amendment, lying in the shadows and
undiscovered for some 140 years. (Which clause is it where I'd find the
words "privacy" and "third trimester?")

And before you start dragging out all the old war horses, let me say I do
not disagree with the result in Brown v. Board of Ed., and I generally
favor
minimum if any legal restrictions on abortion. At the same time it's
pretty
clear that the latter is not a topic anyone thought was addressed by the
14th Amendment until the Supremes decided to replace intentions of those
approving the Amendment with whatever the nine wise men happened to think
is
a good idea on a particular day.

You have demonstrated not that the Supreme Court has amended the
Constitution, but that they have given opinions, which according to the
Constitution have the weight of Law, that you disagree with. I often
disagree with Supreme Court decisions myself -- but such decisions are not
new amendments.

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?

When has it done so?

Frequently, going all the way back to Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse
Cases,
and Lochner v. NY, running through the reapportionment cases, the various
abortion cases, Lawrence v. Texas (holding that the 14th Amendment created
a
right to commit sodomy), and on and on. Among recent cases the dead
giveaway
is reference to finding some newly created right hiding in the "penumbra"
or
being an "emanation" of the 14th amendment, lying in the shadows and
undiscovered for some 140 years. (Which clause is it where I'd find the
words "privacy" and "third trimester?")

And before you start dragging out all the old war horses, let me say I do
not disagree with the result in Brown v. Board of Ed., and I generally
favor
minimum if any legal restrictions on abortion. At the same time it's
pretty
clear that the latter is not a topic anyone thought was addressed by the
14th Amendment until the Supremes decided to replace intentions of those
approving the Amendment with whatever the nine wise men happened to think
is
a good idea on a particular day.


Interesting, but you said earlier that the Supremes have "amended" the
Constitution. I know they've ruled on various aspects of it, but I didn't
realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of
States to ratify before that happens?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Retrieving an overboard part
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said:

Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased
differently, from whence does the authority of said court come?

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?


Nothing, unless the Constitution gives them that power; I don't think it
does, correct me if I'm wrong.

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

Cheers
Martin

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:50:42 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I didn't
realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of
States to ratify before that happens?

Precisely the point.


So, then they didn't actually amend it. Thanks for the confirmation.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:01:12 -0500, Marty said:

Under what authority was the Supreme Court created? Or perhaps phrased
differently, from whence does the authority of said court come?

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?


Nothing, unless the Constitution gives them that power; I don't think it
does, correct me if I'm wrong.

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

Cheers
Martin


43 to 107.... duhhh.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:46:32 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:


When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational person could
believe
were in the minds of those ratifying the Constitution or applicable
amendments, they have changed the document without following the procedure
called for to change it. Whether you choose to call that an amendment of
the
document or not is rather beside the point. It does represent exercise of
a
function which goes well beyond the judicial function of resolving cases
or
controversies in accordance with law.

The Constitution itself provides for the mooting of laws which are repugnant
to the Constitition. It is the Supreme Court which makes rulings on whether
or not laws violate the Constitution, or the rights of Citizens, whether
those Citizens are in the majority or minority, and whether the laws are
popularly-supported or not. Interpretation of the meaning of specific
clauses in the Constitution is also within the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court.

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said:

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the
words
"privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one vote."

What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned!


The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Retrieving an overboard part
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said:

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the
words
"privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one
vote."

What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned!


The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Yes, and the court is within its purview to interpret that and other
sections. It's not within their purview to amend the constitution.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com