TheScout

If the Supreme Court makes an unconstitutional ruling, all other officials have a DUTY to ignore it. They all swear to support the constitution. Not to support whatever the Supreme Court says. Your answer to an out of control court is just absurd. I would prefer the other two branches ignoring warped decisions to individuals shooting crazy judges. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution. Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." And where exactly does the Constitution say the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws? Oak Tree, You present interesting analysis and for the most part I agree. I am though not aware of any impeachment for incompetence, I thought they were all for criminal actions. Impeachment is not like a vote of no confidence. Nonetheless, if the SCOTUS does issue a bizzare ruling, I am sure you do not believe the President is bound to enforce it until Congress gets around to impeachment and removal. They might no even be in session. Lastly some more insight from Mr. Jefferson, "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

Merlyn, you didn't answer my question either. I asked what should the President and Congress do if the SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment does not apply any more in any cases. If they completly invalidate it. The Supreme Court does not have less power then the other branches. It has the same. All branches have the duty to judge the constitutionality of any measure. You try to raise the Supreme Court up as a super branch which can audit the rest of the government with no appeal. That was not the intent of the constitution. Recall Mr. Jefferson wrote, "[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." And where exactly does the Constitution say the Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws? Oak Tree, You present interesting analysis and for the most part I agree. I am though not aware of any impeachment for incompetence, I thought they were all for criminal actions. Impeachment is not like a vote of no confidence. Nonetheless, if the SCOTUS does issue a bizzare ruling, I am sure you do not believe the President is bound to enforce it until Congress gets around to impeachment and removal. They might no even be in session. Lastly some more insight from Mr. Jefferson, "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

Meryln, Your position that the Supreme Court can never act in an unconstitutional manner doesn't make sense either. Someone above pointed out that checks and balances depend on mutual respect. The Supreme Court, more than any other branch depends on this. It can only gain this by well reasoned decisions based on the text and the intent of the federal constitution within the proper zone of its authority. The reasons why their are so many criticisms of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary today is that they have long this respect over the last half century. The SCOTUS has acted in a manner to ignore the text and intent of the constitution and impose by judicial fiat social and moral changes upon the people of this country. Roe v. Wade comes to mind. It is probably the most controversial decision today, and the Court never should have got involved in this moral issue. The case is more responsible for the Court losing its respect than any other. The question remains, if the Supreme Court invalidates the 1st Amendment tomorrow, what should Congress and the President do? I would hope they would ignore the decision. Do you propose they are bound to follow it?

I think Brown vs. Board of Education was unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says all must treated equal. If there is an equal white school next to an equal black school, that passes muster. Seperate is not inherently unequal. I would have just ignored the decision like many Southern schools did at the time. So Merlyn, what if the SCOTUS stated in a decision tomorrow that the First Amendment did not apply anymore. What should Congress and the President do? I would hope they would say the Courts actions are unconstitutional and not enforce the effects of such a decision.

OGE, Your recourse to impeachment is problematic. The Constitutional Convention considered allowing impeachment for inability but instead decided on the current wording which applies only to criminal behavior. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Hence I would say a judge could not be removed for faulty rulings. The logical result would then be members of Congress removed for voting on unconstitutional measures I presume. That would be quite absurd. Merlyn, When the Court strikes down a resolution of Congress it becomes null and void. Just like when Congress or the President determine the Court acts wrongly, its decisions become null and void.

It is a shame that most people forget the most important check is that each branch of the government must judge the constitutionality of the acts of the others. Or can the Supreme Court do no constitutional wrong?

The people of the State of Georgia have the right to make rules for any local government in their land. At the time tribal sovereignty was not widely accepted. (It was just imposed by the Supreme Court in another judicial overstretch). Indians were considered wards of the government and not part of the political community.

Jackson is mostly regarded as one of the finest presidents. His face dots the $20 bill to this day. Resistance to illegal government actions has a long history in the United States. From the 1765 Tea Party, to the Patriots of 1775, Shay's Rebellion of 1786, the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the 1814 Hartford Convention, 1832's South Carolina Nullification, the 1861 War Between the States, the 1960's "Massive Resistance." Sometimes such things work, sometimes they do not. We all know that the federal constitution does not give the Supreme Court the exclusive power to say what is constitutional and what is not. Instead of the executive ignoring the Supreme Court, it is the executive also using his power to interpret the constitution. All three branches of our government have the duty to reject actions contray to the constitution. If Congress passes a illegal bill, the President has the duty to veto it. If the President undertakes an illegal action, it is the Congress' duty to impeach him or deprive him of funds or use the other tools at its disposal. The voters will then judge them all. The problem is that people think the Supreme Court must be obeyed, however warped, and contrary to the original intent of the constitution they are. People do not think there is any check. Now that is dangerous. A court using arbitrary authority to rule on whatever social and political questions it desires in any way that it desires can make a country a Banana Republic as easily as any President can.

It is time some politician pulls an Andrew Jackson again. When he felt the court errored in Worcester v. Georgia he supposedly said, "John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision, now let him enforce it." And proceeded to let Georgia run its own affairs without interference from Marshall. If a politician did this today with some of the wacky court decisions, I am sure he would be greatly applauded.

Merlyn, you and the school lawyers have all fell victim to the imperial judiciary that is trying to run this country from the bench. You all follow warped constitutional doctrines.

Yeah Merlyn, because there is not "right to a fair trial" or "seperation of powers" either. Like wall between church and state such terms mean nothing. There are constitutional guidelines on how to run a trial and how the branches of the government relate to each other. There is also the first amendment, but that protects the exercise of religon as much as it stops its establishment. Again, it seems like most people ignore your warped view of the Constitution imposed on people by an imperial judiciary as they ignore the spirit and the text of the federal constitution.

If a prayer is said in school, and a child chooses to go stand outside in the hallway. He/she is excluding oneself.

Were they excluded by the school, or did they excuse themselves? The difference remains. A court may not agree, but the vast majority of Americans do. What should be more important? Don't bother answering. I know what you will say.

You miss a subtle difference. The school is not excluding them. They are excluding themselves from the theistic activities by choice.

Your claim that we think atheists have no civil rights is absurd and you no that. Just because we all don't subscribe to your warped court-imposed view of the constitution, does not mean we do not care about civil rights.

Merlyn, you take your warped conclusions and are always assured of your correctness. Notice I never stated I KNEW the policy, like you always claim you know what is right. Recall my friend that I said, "I am not sure, but it seems like the words you get from the website are policy guidelines, not rules."

"Yes, I acknowledge that. However, homosexuality isn't one of them in my book." The BSA and you have different morals. That is no big deal. "Yeah, the policy is clear, if you know to go look on the BSA website and hunt it down among the press releases and legal documents." The BSA website is not the primary source for information about the organization. Ask any local professional or comissioner and they will tell you the policy.

Well I guess some schools still charter units. Thats what this article is about. I am not sure, but it seems like the words you get from the website are policy guidelines, not rules. Also note the construction of "Public schools and government organizations do not serve as chartered organizations." It could have said, "Public schools and government organizations can not serves as chartered organizations." It almost seems like it does not bind the council. It is saying what public schools will "not" do. If national wanted to BAN local councils from chartering to public schools, the language could have been much clearer. Just a thought.

Dan, I am sure you can acknowledge that there are different degrees of immorality. None of us our perfect. But the BSA realizes that there are certain lifestyles that they do not want to influence their members. The logic of banning all immoral people from teaching morality would lead to nobody teaching morality anywhere. I do not think that is good for society. Merlyn, yeah I guess that is the problem with individual thought. People interpret things differently. There is no big deal though. If anybody asks, the policy is now quite clear.

Well it is certainly nice of you to tell the BSA what they "need" to do. I guess they are just "sloppy" in their language. Hey you have said before that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson were sloppy in their language and corrected them. I guess nobody is clear enough for you, with the exception of the Supreme Court (and only the side of the opinion with which you agree).

"In a letter dated March 11, 2005, the Director of Registration at the Boy Scouts of America National Office notified the ACLU of Illinois that it intended to ADVISE "all local councils to transfer charters issued to government entities to private entities immediately." Emphasis Added.

It says "morally straight." Do you really expect the BSA to list all immoral activities? Such would be a daunting task.

Merlyn, local councils were not told to do so! Read your own links. They were "advised to do so."

Merlyn, then why when you say that don't you leave out the term 'explicit.' Oh yeah, because we all no the policy says no gays.