Originally posted by Metal BrainWell, wiki says so, so it must be true. The Supreme Court must have been filled with fear that the President might again attempt a plan that couldn't get over 20 votes in a heavily Democratic Senate.
You really should take a reading course.
He is an excerpt from the court packing link I provided. It did not matter that the bill failed. The fear lingered.
"Although the bill failed, the Supreme Court, fearing FDR's attempt to neutralize them, began declaring his New Deal laws constitutional. By 1942, the Supreme Court had virtually stopped striking down congressional laws passed by New Dealers."
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe alternative is unibersal non-suffrage. We need the strongest, smartest, and most able among us to rise up and take control. The best thing for that person to do would be to create a dictoatorship government with a capitalist economy system. This alows those who are able to rise up and meet their full potential. Making everyone think their equal only ties the weak to the strong like an anchor that drags the strong down tho their level.
So what's the alternative to universal suffrage? What criteria do you suggest should be used to establish who has the right to vote and who doesn't?
Originally posted by r2d2cheeseI think that has been going on already. People now believe they have the right to vote, but in reality they don't. The whole left-right paradigm has fooled us for years. I have a hard time believing ex-pres G.W. Bush is one of the smartest though. His ties gave him control. Speaking to the court packing plan: the fear of martial law will get a new-new deal passed. More of a Raw deal.
The alternative is unibersal non-suffrage. We need the strongest, smartest, and most able among us to rise up and take control. The best thing for that person to do would be to create a dictoatorship government with a capitalist economy system. This alows those who are able to rise up and meet their full potential. Making everyone think their equal only ties the weak to the strong like an anchor that drags the strong down tho their level.
Originally posted by r2d2cheeseAnd how would you establish this in practise?
The alternative is unibersal non-suffrage. We need the strongest, smartest, and most able among us to rise up and take control. The best thing for that person to do would be to create a dictoatorship government with a capitalist economy system. This alows those who are able to rise up and meet their full potential. Making everyone think their equal only ties the weak to the strong like an anchor that drags the strong down tho their level.
Originally posted by joe beyserI agree. They have the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act hanging over our heads.
I think that has been going on already. People now believe they have the right to vote, but in reality they don't. The whole left-right paradigm has fooled us for years. I have a hard time believing ex-pres G.W. Bush is one of the smartest though. His ties gave him control. Speaking to the court packing plan: the fear of martial law will get a new-new deal passed. More of a Raw deal.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122
If and when there is another constitutional convention, I wonder what would be changed. I bet it would be something to ease our country into a one world order, something about sustainable population, or maybe even something which will define who has the right to live. I know this is sounding paranoid, but eventually people are going to want their freedoms and govts checks and balances restored. If people want this back and demand thier constitutional rights, why wouldn't they be attacked by changing the constitution?
Originally posted by PsychoPawnThis answer definately shows that a change does not weaken the constitution with regaurds to voting. How about the lawmakers making unconstitutional law and justifying it by saying the founding fathers could not have known about certain aspects of society today?
If the constitution wasn't flexible then we wouldn't have had some of the amendments such as giving the right to vote to women.
How far down was this on that slippery slope?
I agree with Kazet that the constitution should be changeable, but it definitely should be more difficult to change than a regular law - as it is.
Originally posted by joe beyserAs for unconstitutional laws, I would think they are taking the easy way out instead of getting the constitutional amendment that they should require.
This answer definately shows that a change does not weaken the constitution with regaurds to voting. How about the lawmakers making unconstitutional law and justifying it by saying the founding fathers could not have known about certain aspects of society today?
The founding fathers is another thing. I came from Canada and now live in the states and one thing I noticed when I moved here is the practical deification of the founding fathers. It seems sometimes that if the founding fathers said something then many think we shouldn't be able to contradict it.
The thing is, the founding fathers are dead so what they wanted is pretty much irrelevant other than guiding us in what they intended when they wrote and put certain things into law and the constitution, etc.. and their ideas.
Don't get me wrong, they were smart and great people. They deserve respect and we definitely should know what they did want and what their ideas were, but that doesn't mean that we have to maintain our country exactly in the way they imagined.
Society does change and the founding fathers not having the ability to have foreseen certain aspects of society today isn't in itself justification for a law to be enacted, but the founding fathers said so isn't a reason to maintain the status quo.
I think the constitution needs to contain the inalienable rights that people have and it should be respected as such. The fact that it contains the core rights means that it should be hard to change.
Any change made should be done rationally and the case for it should be hard to make - that's why it should be hard to do.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI agree with that for the most part, but there are laws that have pretty much done away with the checks and balances. In the name of national security we can be set up for a tyranical dictatorship. I don't know the url now but I looked up terrorism statistics and it was a real eye opener. What we have here is a phony war aimed at taking our freedoms away. I recomend looking into it. I was in the military in 1986 to 1989. There were several briefings where they said that the biggest terrorism threat we face is the Mexico and Canadian borders. After 911 nothing substantial was done to protect the borders. How many people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan on both sides for this war?
As for unconstitutional laws, I would think they are taking the easy way out instead of getting the constitutional amendment that they should require.
The founding fathers is another thing. I came from Canada and now live in the states and one thing I noticed when I moved here is the practical deification of the founding fathers. It seems sometimes th ...[text shortened]... ationally and the case for it should be hard to make - that's why it should be hard to do.
Originally posted by joe beyserI definitely have a problem with the concept of a the "war on terrorism" primarily because there isn't a defined end. It definitely has the potential to be used to maintain the bloated military budget - just look at the recent suggestions made by Gates. He suggested a 4% increase in the military budget and half the talking heads on the news and politicians were calling it a budget cut. One senator or congressman called it "disarming america"!
I agree with that for the most part, but there are laws that have pretty much done away with the checks and balances. In the name of national security we can be set up for a tyranical dictatorship. I don't know the url now but I looked up terrorism statistics and it was a real eye opener. What we have here is a phony war aimed at taking our freedoms away. ...[text shortened]... e borders. How many people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan on both sides for this war?
Just like the "war on drugs" is never going to end, at least not with a victory.
The US is just like any other country in that our people are just as susceptible to be cowed by fear and then let our freedoms be taken. In fact we may be more susceptible to it since it hasn't truly been done like it has in other countries so we haven't gone through it.
I definitely would like to see the US get out of Iraq and Afghanistan too.