Holy cow!!!!!!!!!!

[Beavah]

Yah, so what if somethin' like this were da topic of an Ethical Controversies discussion with our scouts or venturers?

 

How would we frame the ideas and the choices for the kids to help them make their own decisions (rememberin' that one of da primary ways they learn is by watchin' us, eh)?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, your position doesn't seem consistent regarding leaders; you approved of Washington not being sniped, even though he wasn't a civilian leader, he was a major military general. And your arbitrary degree of 'totalitarianness' that makes it OK to assassinate an opposing leader doesn't make sense either -- Franklin certainly felt that George III would have hanged the revolutionaries if they had lost. Why is it unfair to try to kill someone who would kill you, given the chance?

[TheScout]

I said Major Ferguson did an honorable thing not shooting Washington. I do not think it would have been immoral to do so.

 

I am sure you can see that just because something is not immoral does not make it honorable.

 

There is no degree of totalitarianism in the example. I am not sure if you really know what totalitarianism means . . .

 

King George III was a constitutional ruler. He signed laws passed by the elected Parliament of the United Kingdom and let his responsible ministers enforce them. George wasn't a dictator in any since.

 

I am sure you can also see that there is a differnce in passing unjust laws and being a totalitarian.

 

For instance, the antebellum South had in the opinon of many, unjust laws passed against them by the United States. I do not think the US was totalitarian . . .

 

Your argument about Franklin is again silly. King George could have sent an assassin to take him out. Franklin had no protection. He didn't. Civilized people don't believe in assassinations to solve problems.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Like I pointed out earlier, Hitler was elected, so I don't see the distinction you make between Hitler and George III as far as what makes assassination OK for Hitler but not George III. Killing monarchs is so common it even has its own term, "regicide."

[Gunny2862]

On a lighter and slightly more weird note; I have always liked that term "Regicide", only it has always made me wonder how many kings were named Reggie?

[TheScout]

The King was not a dictator. The King did not run a totalitarian state. Killing the King would have not changed the nature of the United Kingdom. Though the King aided in passing unjust laws. I do not think he was evil.

 

Hitler was a dictator. He ran an evil totalitarian state. He repeatedly violated the German constituion. Killing Hitler would have dramatically changed the nature of the evil Nazi German state.

 

Your history of Nazi Germany seems a little faulty. Hitler was not elected to the office he held in the war, Fuhrer. He took this title after the offices of President and Chancellor were illegally merged as it was contrary to the German Constitution. Even the Enabling Act made it a necesity to keep the office of President unchanged. Hitler was never elected to any office. The only office Hitler ever ran for, President, in 1932, he lost.

 

In 1933 Hitler was APPOINTED, not elected Chancellor of Germany.

 

I am not saying the method of choosing a leader matters, I just felt the need to correct your error (which is a common misconception, so it is not your fault)

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually I thought regicide is what put Archie and Jug Head away in Sing Sing for a very long time.

 

As I remember Jug Heads testimony at trial, the attorney referred to him many times as Mr Head.

 

The most descriptive part was the explanation of Jug Head's car, it had a four on the floor and a fifth under the seat

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I think killing George III would have changed things fairly drastically, particularly given his mental problems.

 

OGE, I should've worn my "Morse Science High School Athletic Dept." shirt today.

[Gunny2862]

OGE, yer killin' me. ROTFLOL And I suppose Veronica and Betty are then free for Friday night? Not that I am or anything.

 

Is this considered hijacking?

[TheScout]

Your contention that the death of King George III would have changed things dramatically is highly speculative.

 

The Kings mental health did not deteriorate until the late 1780s afer the war was over. At that point his son, later George IV became the regent for him.

 

George IV was a famously stubborn King and clung to the perogatives of the Crown like his father and I can not imagine that his early accession would bring a great change in British imperial policy.

 

Now if the speculative assasination took place before 1780 it would get more interesting. George would still accede to the throne, but due to the fact that he would not yet be 18, his mother would automatically become Regent for him until he reached the age of majority by previous act of Parliament. The Queen, Charlotte, had known Tory sympathies.

 

To me it seems unlikely that either George or Charlotte who haved drastically altered their father's/ Charlottes government (which did enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons).

 

Either way, the assassination of the King would have been a cowardly and deceitful act. It would not have been a noble and honorable way to start a new Repulic, nor would it have been consistent with the Scout Oath and Laws.

[packsaddle]

Well folks, the title of the thread sure as heck is appropriate. I wonder if the DHS is monitoring all this?

George the second, are you out there somewhere? Still taking bong hits?

[OldGreyEagle]

Veronica and Betty were tried for witchcraft, suspicions were aroused during turn of the century parties when it was noted either Veronica or Betty had been Prom or Homecomming Queen or runnerup at Riverdale High since 1942.

 

Charges were dropped when "Pop" Tate admitted he had been "doctoring" the sodas and sundaes he served them with steroids, HGH and other chemical additives that would make Floyd Landis jealous because he wanted to keep the gang young forever. He fled the country and is rumored to be alive and well in Brazil and working for the international subsidiary of BALCO.

 

Gunny, don't worry about it, it's not hijacking unless I say it's hijacking and in which case, it's good to be the king, or moderator unless someone wants to assasinate me in which case it would suck to the the king, or moderator, which ever the case may be.

[CalicoPenn]

All this teeth gnashing over the "what if" bumping off of Hitler and/or George III and if it's ok to bump off Hitler but not George or is that hypocritical - and in the end it's all meaningless twaddle. You're assuming that history would have changed for the better had Hitler been assassinated - allow me to suggest that such an action may have, instead, allowed someone else to ascend to power that was even more of an idealogue than Hitler and this person would have prevailed instead of losing. It's not that big of a hypothetical stretch, either - it's known that Adolph had some of his inner circle removed from power because they were a direct threat to his control, and he feared that not only would they take control, but they would prove to be better than he was.

 

What's more important is the original question - about the Supreme Court somehow negating the First Amendment and what the response should be. Let's start out by saying that this is an extreme hypothetical - there is no provision in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to amend the constitution - and declaring the First to be invalid would be amending the constitution. It can't be done - the Supreme Court doesn't have such power. What they can do is limit the protections (ie - can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre) but they can't eliminate the protections.

 

But let's say they do make such a ruling - what to do? A couple of things that have been suggested - impeachment, or Congress passing a law stating the Court can't rule on such a law - aren't possible. In the first case, Judges of the supreme or inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior. This is important - that clause is specifically there to prevent Congress or a President from taking action against a member of the Judiciary because they disagree with that person's opnions. Bad behavior is limited to criminal behavior - as long as the actions of the court or a member of the court aren't criminal, the constitution prevents removal. A Judge can't be removed for infirmity, for mental illness, for disability, for being an utter lunatic - s/he can only be removed for criminal actions. Ruling that the 1st Amendment is unconstitutional isn't a criminal action - it's utterly insane - but it isn't criminal.

 

In the second case, read the clause very carefully - it doesn't give Congress the power to write into a law that the Supreme Court can't make a ruling on a law. Congress can't prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing any law for constitutionality. If that was the case, every law we have would have a sentence in it exempting that law from judicial review, thereby negating completely the function of the Judiciary. What this clause explains is that, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original (or primary) jurisdiction in certain cases - its kind of a "Go Directly to the Supreme Court, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200" clause. In cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, the cases are heard directly by the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts. The clause further states that in all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdication - in other words, the cases are heard by lower courts first and the Supreme Court acts as an Appeals Court (in this case, final appeal). Here's the catch - Exceptions to Appellate Jurisdiction (NOT to Original Jusrisdiction cases, only appellate jurisdiction cases) may be made by Congress, under such regulations Congress shall make. This catch doesn't mean that regulation can be "no court will have any jurisdiction over this law" - clearly, the Judiciary has jurisdiction over ALL laws. No, what it means is that Congress can state in a law that SCOTUS will have Original Jurisdiction in reviewing this law. They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC. As to further regulations, this means that Congress can tell the Court that should they accept a case to review such a law, that the Court must rule on it within a certain period of time, or that it may only accept briefs from the two original parties (no friends of the court briefs) or other such items. This clause has rarely, if ever, been evoked - and likely would only be called upon if there was a national emergency requiring near immediate congressional and executive action and a desire by Congress to make sure such a law passed constitutional muster before it was fully implemented.

 

So what to do? Either wait the Court out until a change in the makeup of the court can be accomplished, or pass a Constitutional Amendment reaffirming First Amendment rights and another Amendment stating that Amendments to the Constitution cannot be ruled unconsitutional by the Courts and that judges may be removed from office for attempting to violate this amendment.

 

Calico

[TheScout]

Calico, you make interesting points and well reasoned points, but I must disagree in part.

 

You correctly point out how the Framers of the Constitution knowingly intended to restrict the impeachment power as compared to English constitutionalism.

 

However, one must also look at the history of the term "high crimes and misdemenors" as written in the 18th Century English context. High crimes referred mainly to crimes against the state. Also a principal High Misdemenor was public maladministration.

 

It is important to note the first conviction of an impeachment was in 1804 on a judge, John Pickering after President Jeffrson instigated charges against him for drunkenous and bad decisions.

 

A decision invalidating the 1st Amendment would not simply be a judicial opinion people could disagree with. Such a rampant disregard for the constitution might be construed as a high crime? It is not any worse constitutionalism that unilaterally invalidated parts.

 

You correctly point out that in certain cases Congress can not remove jurisdiction, when ministers, consuls, states, and ambassadors are a party. As such, the Courts original jurisdiction is extremly limited.

 

You also point out, correctly that Congress can only make exceptions to appellate jurisdiction.

 

I think you get off base when you write,

 

"They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC."

 

You miss a point from the crown jewel of American cases, Marbury v. Madison. The Juridiciary Act of 1789 expanded the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. That is where Mr. Marshal found his fault writing,

 

"If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction, made in the constitution, is form without substance.

 

Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

 

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it."

 

To me, this reads that Congress can not swap original or appellate jurisdiction or add to the original jurisdiction.

 

Therefore, The Exclusion Clause must have another meaning.

 

They can change, without constitutional amendment, on a law by law basis, which law that would normally be an Appellate Jurisdiction for the SC to Original Jurisdiction for the SC. As to further regulations, this means that Congress can tell the Court that should they accept a case to review such a law, that the Court must rule on it within a certain period of time, or that it may only accept briefs from the two original parties (no friends of the court briefs) or other such items.

 

Ex Parte Mccardale, the Reconstruction case involving habeous corpus, the SCOUTS shows that it Congress does have the power to regulate its appellate jurisdiction as it said,

 

"The source of that jurisdiction, and the limitations of it by the Constitution and by statute, have been on several occasions subjects of consideration here. In the case of Durousseau v. The United States,12 particularly, the whole matter was carefully examined, and the court held, that while 'the appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act, but are given by the Constitution,' they are, nevertheless, 'limited and regulated by that act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject.' The court said, further, that the judicial act was an exercise of the power given by the Constitution to Congress 'of making exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.' 'They have described affirmatively,' said the court, 'its jurisdiction, and this affirmative description has been understood to imply a negation of the exercise of such appellate power as is not comprehended within it.'

 

The principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it.

 

The exception to appellate jurisdiction in the case before us, however, is not an inference from the affirmation of other appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception.

 

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words."

 

In this spirit there have been other measures over the years to strip courts of powers to rule on gay marriage, school prayer, pornography, etc. These of course have not been able to make it through Congress.

 

Meanwhile, Congress is given the exclusive right to create inferior courts, and hence creates their jurisdiction.

 

Therefore, but not giving lower courts jurisdiction in areas where the SCOTUS only has appellate power it seems in my humble opinion that Congress can effectivly strip courts of jurisdiction.

 

It is a very vague clause, and there are many other arguments involved which I won't get into as I have already probably been too long winded.

 

Regardless, I also feel your proposed solution of waiting out justices or passing amendments is not proper. Under the example, the SCOTUS invalidating the 1st Amendment, would the Executive be forced to restrict such rights in accordance with the SCOTUS decision until a justice or two dies, or until the lengthy amendment process is passed.

 

I don't think so. The Executive must not enforce such a ruling, and he wishes to Congress must not fund such activities.

 

Lacking federal protection of liberties, its time for State action. Interposition, nullification, or secession, but those are another argument for another day . . .(This message has been edited by TheScout)

[SSScout]

Signs UP !!

 

Before we dismiss the class for summer recess, let's review the summer reading assignments:

 

Of course, the DoI and the C, all umpteen pages...

 

Common Sense

 

Speeches and Letters from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (choose two for report)

 

Federalist Papers

 

* * *

 

Movies to watch:

 

Day of the Jackal

 

Z

 

Gandhi

 

The 49th Parrallel

 

Follow Me Boys (don't forget to review the GtSS)

 

Judgement at Nuremberg

 

Soylent Green

 

King of Hearts

 

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

 

And don't forget your assignment is to develope an essay of from 50 to 5,000 words comparing any American president with Idi Amin. Especially examine their social support programs.

 

Have fun over the summer and see you next fall.

 

 

 

"It's for the Kids".