Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> First off the top of my head is Chief
> Justice Marshall and her "..to hell with the law.."-attitude.

Can you be more specific, please?  In what specific case has Marshall
displayed this attitude?

> I DO see the Constitution as a "living
> document" too... Just in a different way.
> It is "alive" because it has provisions
> for change....

Agreed, but changing the Constitution is the prerogative of Congress -- not
the judiciary.

> But I believe in interpreting laws by
> their original intent, not by events that
> have changed since then...

Actually, the US Supreme Court's job
is not to interpret the laws.  It is their
responsibility to make certain that
Congress does not exceed its constitutional
authority and that laws do not infringe
upon the rights of the people.  Integral to
this charge is the responsibility to make
certain that Congress does not infringe upon
states' rights and vice versa.

> If the law is outdated, strike it down
> or update it (this is a power of the
> legislature, NOT the judiciary), but
> as long as it's on the books, a judge
> should only have the power to follow
> it as stated in black and white.

I disagree, at least in part.  The courts have the responsibility of
interpreting and applying the law.  They must further assess the
constitutional validity of the laws in order to protect the rights of the
citizens.  If a judge finds that a given law is unconstitutional he has the
responsibility to decline to enforce it in a specific case.  The appellate
and Supreme Court have the authority to examine lower court decisions and
the laws themselves and to strike down any which they deem to be
unconstitutional.

This system of "checks and balances" is an essential part of our form of
government designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the people.  Take
away any part of the trinity of power and the inevitable result is
dictatorship.

> I've seen, so far in my lifetime,
> several of my rights dwindle down
> to the verge of being history and
> now I'm witnessing the checks and
> balances part of the Constitution
> also beginning to fade...

Make no mistake about it.  The present administration would like nothing
better than to take away all of your freedoms in the names of "security" and
"morality" -- neither of which they are able to offer.

> The judiciary cannot be allowed to legislate.

Without the system of judiciary review, there would be no Miranda rights;
children would still be executed; black Americans would not be able to vote
or attend "white" schools and women would still undergo back-room butchered
abortions by the thousands as they did only a few years ago.  The list of
rights protected by the courts goes on forever.  It is almost as long as the
list of disingenuous politicians who would gladly legislate away your rights
for their own political gain.