What IF.......

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by ZebProctor1, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. ZebProctor1

    ZebProctor1 Well-Known Member

    A good what if:

    Some random lobbyist group (RIAA, ACLU, etc.) sues the government over a bill they passed, and the suit goes through and they win, the judge then says that the Act, or new law is unlawful, what then?? Who has the say-so, the lawmakers, or the judicial system?????
     
  2. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    Don't remember much of your civics class eh?

    If it gets thrown out by a judge it is ruled unconstitutional and the lawmakers have to start over or quit. Sometimes this has to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, but it happens fairly regularly. What gets interesting is when other agencies or departments of the government collide and their isn't any clear cut precidence to guide what to do.
    Recently the Army Corp of Engineers got sued because thier control of the Misouri river was supposedly endangering some critters. Either they were flooding or preventing flooding and that was pissing the environmentalists off.
    Anyway, this judge orders the ACE to stop and the they ignored her (actually their lawyers filed an appeal or injunction or some such) saying she didn't have any authority to tell them what to do.
     
  3. ZebProctor1

    ZebProctor1 Well-Known Member

    Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    I'm talking more along the lines of something like the Patriot Act.... It was passed by congress right, but now the ACLU is sueing saying it is unconstitutional...... now the lawmakers make the laws of course, and the law interpreters are there to interpret, I just don't see how the judicial system would be able to have the power over those who make the law.....
     
  4. Tank Boy

    Tank Boy clank clank boom

    triparte system

    Because there are three branches of... geez man you must be bored today.
     
  5. Richard Lesher

    Richard Lesher Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    Would that not be the Constitution? If a new law falls outside of the Constitution that is where the judiciary branch steps in and says this law is crap. If the law makers want to make a crap law stick they would have to amend the Constitution so the new law would comply with it, which in the end would need ¾ (I am pretty sure it is ¾) of the states to ratify it.
     
  6. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    go back to grade school and pay attention. This time stop dropping pencils under your desk so you can look up that little girls dress behind you.

    remember the three branches and the system of checks and balances? sometimes it doesn't work too good, but most times it's a good system
     
  7. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    so you actually stuffed your mind with this drivel instead of looking up girl's skirts?

    what a loser. :rolleyes:


    which kind of reminds me of happy gilmore. "you eat pieces of shit for breakfast? gross."
     
  8. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    yeah, poor me, I guess that's why I have a satisfying self-secure life outside places like this :D
     
  9. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    :rolleyes: good dive bomb insult. {not}

    you suck yamablob.

    at least zeb has actually seen a vagina.
     
  10. Oh, did you show him yours? :Poke: :)
     
  11. mad brad

    mad brad Guest

    no, but yo mama did. beyotch.

    don't you have some heart failure medicine to take old man?

    :D
     
  12. ZebProctor1

    ZebProctor1 Well-Known Member

    Re: triparte system

    you have no idea.....
     
  13. ZebProctor1

    ZebProctor1 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    I remember the crap they taught us in grade school, which was VERY little on this stuff, the good stuff, and more then 9/10's of the class about african-american rights, and womens rights, and america the "melting pot" shit....... I am aware that it takes, as richard stated, 3/4 of the congress to ratify the constitution, but it makes close to no sense that if you have a large part of congress for a bill or act that one judge can wipe all of that time and effort away, it seems the judicial system has too much power nowadays and I was debating in my head the possible solutions to this debacle.... Not too long ago, I would very rarely hear of the judicial system going against a bill or act, but nowadays it's almost certain... it's like the judges are going through some sort of power trip and want the congress to know that their one opinion is better than the 400+ people in congress.....
     
  14. Richard Lesher

    Richard Lesher Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    And the president has even more. The Prez could VETO and and it would take a 2/3 vote to over ride that. Judments can be appealed and judges can over rule each other

    I remember my law professor having this dicussion of power.
    One man, the Prez, can veto all that work
    a few (a hand ful) men can throw out all that work
    and many men (a few hundred) have to agree on all that work

    But the say of one branch is never the final say, all of them can be over ruled and worked around.
     
  15. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you sure you work for the gob'ment?

    only one-- anarchy
     
  16. Sean Jordan

    Sean Jordan Well-Known Member

    Boy, you must have failed Civics and/or US History. Does Marbury v. Madison ring a bell? Established what is now known as Judicial Review?

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/judicialrev.htm

    http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13.html#1
     

Share This Page