Incase you live in cave, there is now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. O'Conner, the first women to ever be on the court announced her retirment today.

I bet you liberals are running scared, aren't you?

lol

or die, just kidding.

its too bad. i hope ginsburg will retire.

quote:

I know. When abortion was illegal in some states it went against equal-protection.

Equal protection meaning that states cannot have differing laws?!? That is insane. Why do we even states.

And rehnquist will retire in July, you have my word.

Red, I heard that O'Connor retired because Rehquinst (sp?) is not going to retire yet.

well, Sandra Day O'Conner, supposedly the "Arizona Twin" of William Rehnquist has been nothing but liberal the past couple of years.
Her retirement is an early conservative victory. She may be seen as a centrist, but her siding in the most controversial cases has been with the liberal opinion.
This is one thing that i didnt like about Reagan.
They say there may be three justice spots open for Bush to fill. They say that Justice Ginsburg is in worse health than Chief Justice Rehnquist. Well see.

quote:

Read the tenth ammendment - the federal government can only overturn laws that are in conflict with the US Constitution.

I know. When abortion was illegal in some states it went against equal-protection.

quote:

I believe that the fed. government can override laws within reason. Obviously limits must be set.

Read the tenth ammendment - the federal government can only overturn laws that are in conflict with the US Constitution.

quote:

Why do we even recognize states if the federal government can over-ride anything they want.

I believe that the fed. government can override laws within reason. Obviously limits must be set.

2/3 of each house and 2/3 of the states. I am not quite sure if it is legislatures or popular votes, not that it really matters.

There is a lot wrong with that. The federal government can only dictate things that are in the constitution otherwise it is a state issue, the 10th Amendment covers that. Why do we even recognize states if the federal government can over-ride anything they want. We should just get rid of states and just have one big nation.

Just out of curiosty, in the case of a constitutional amendment who exactly ratifies it? I know that Congress must approve but by what margin? How do the states decide? Is it through popular vote or the state legislature?

quote:

liberals use the equal protection clause to take away states rights by saying that any law passed by the federal government has to applay nation wide.

I meant to ask, what is wrong with that? Isn't that the meaning of equal protection?

No he doesn't have the right to ban anything. That is constitutionally impossible. I would not support fedaral legislation regarding gay marriage, but a Constitutional Amendment is different. That is contigent on the votes of the Congress and ALL of the states therefore giving them the RIGHT to determine their fate.

quote:

Do they lose their marrage? Benefits? Legal issues?

Yes, that is exactly what would happen. That is not messy at all and it happens all of the time with concealed carry laws, speed limits, etc.

If there was an amendment to mandate a federal education system, then fine, although I would vote against it. But there isn't and therefore is a states rights issue.

quote:

Bush has the right to ban gay marriage?

Ah, and thats why the framers of the constitution made things general. They wanted debate. Thats right, nothing comes easy. They wanted people to talk, argue, and have opinions. If it is decided by the states things will get messy. What if a couple is married in MA (lets say MA is legal and NY isn't...im just making this stuff up) and moves to NY. Do they lose their marrage? Benefits? Legal issues? Will signs on the Interstate pop up saying, "Gay Marrage Prohibited"? I hope not. Bush might have the right, he is the President. People elected him. I bet gay people voted for him. So why not? But then again, the people should have a say. It is something that might never be figured out (then again, thats why we have the judicial branch).

Well, I agree with you. Especially issues such as gay marriage should be determined by the states. I wish that gay marriage was legal in the country, but obviously the majority does not agree. Do you think that Bush has the right to ban gay marriage?

Absolutley, but liberals use the equal protection clause to take away states rights by saying that any law passed by the federal government has to applay nation wide. This is wrong. The SC doesn't seem to be in the business of protecting states, only of protecting and expanding federal power.

quote:

If states can't have differing and opposing laws, why even have state's rights?

I agree with that statement to a point. But in some situations I believe that the court should intervene at their own discretion.

quote:

Also, Bush, if Roe v. Wade is overturned I don't think abortion would be banned. Only individual states could ban it, right?

Right because it is a state issue. I don't wat my taxes going to pay for governments that support abortion. I would then be able to choose where to live based on my political beleifs in relation to the government's.

And I guess you could make a case that all cases should be heard in front of the SC. But abortion has nothing to do with due process or equal protection just as a lot of other laws don't. Otherwise there would be no states, just one big lawmaking government overseein the whole of the nation. If states can't have differing and opposing laws, why even have state's rights?

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
I am positive just like MLK was positive. I just want to see a world without prejudice and judgements based on skin color.

But the statements concerning this weren't prejudiced or judgements based on skin color.

So you are saying that the Supreme Court should never have even heard a case such as Roe v. Wade.

But what happens when two amendments conflict with each other? In the 14th amendment it says

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Obviously, this amendment limited the power of the states. The court interpreted the 14th amendment to mean that every citizen should recieve opportunities for abortion, regardless of the state that they reside in.

Also, Bush, if Roe v. Wade is overturned I don't think abortion would be banned. Only individual states could ban it, right?