I like that whole "some of the Constitution is literal, and some is meant to be interpreted" tack... makes you sound like a Fundie with the Bible. Excuse me while I snicker.

Jeff: I wonder, of all those 'lawyers asleep during my trial' appeals, in how many instances was that actually found to have HAPPENED? I mean, I assume you've never heard of such a thing as a convict filing a SPURIOUS appeal/lawsuit (like the guy who sued the prison for a million dollars because they changed brands of peanut butter)?

Because according to my sources, the truth is that it didn't EVER actually happen. Oh, people filed appeals based upon it... but they were thrown out, not because of any court bias, but because the incidents DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Diverging from topic a bit ... the primary evidence in Bill Clinton's impeachment was a recording Linda Tripp made of a conversation between her and Monica Lewinsky. Tripp, a Maryland resident (she lived about a mile from my parent's home, and I went to middle school with both her kids, BTW), never informed Lewinsky she was being tape recorded. Recording a conversation without the other person's knowledge is against Maryland law (a fact Tripp was informed of when she bought the recording device from Radio Shack).

So, essentially, the Republican Party doesn't mind too much using illegally gained evidence to try someone.

Because according to my sources

Which are ... ? Mine are:

Shapiro, The Nation 4/7/97
Elliot and Ballard, Texas Lawyer 2/26/96
O'Brien, op-ed, The Washington Post, 5/28/97
Good Morning America, ABC, 5/4/97
Aron, USA Today, 12/7/98
CNN, 6/25/95 & 3/31/96
Bendavid, Texas Lawyer, 8/14/95
Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 4/17/95
US News & World Report, 8/10/99

This is what happens when you take an activist's WORD for something, while forgetting that they can distort the truth just as much, or more, as their enemies.

Fo2: regarding sleeping lawyers. While some of them might be a result of an excuse for an appeal, the fact that you've got jurors and court officers testifying to sleeping lawyers in some of the cases says to me that, while some might be lies, some are in fact, fact.

I like that whole "some of the Constitution is literal, and some is meant to be interpreted" tack... makes you sound like a Fundie with the Bible. Excuse me while I snicker.

I don't remember saying that. Did I? Where? Why did you attribute this statement to me? Explain.

Yes, the Constitution is flexible with time. It changes to suit the times, that was the Fouding Fathers' intentions. I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty", however, although you seem like you'd like to do away with it. That, however, is you. Not me.

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]

quote:

---

I don't remember saying that. Did I? Where? Why did you attribute this statement to me? Explain.

---

ERROR. I should have been more clear. That should have been directed towards Jay.

quote:

---

Yes, the Constitution is flexible with time. It changes to suit the times, that was the Fouding Fathers' intentions.

---

I disagree. The basic principles were never intended to be altered. Giving the government power to enact laws to enforce the principles is NOT the same as giving it the power to abrogate or change them.

quote:

---

I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty", however, although you seem like you'd like to do away with it. That, however, is you. Not me.

---

Well, you could've looked at the references I posted ...

Or, you could take a look at:

CNN, 6/25/95 & 3/31/96
Elliott and Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 2/26/96
Bendavid, Texas Lawyer, 8/14/95
Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 4/17/95

I admit, At first glance there may be some validity to the argument, but apparently the vastly more experienced appeals court disagrees, and I'm prepared to concede that they probably know more about the case than you, I, or any of the citation-writers, which is why the appeal was denied.

Yes, that's why they created an ammendment process. That's the ONLY way the Constitution changes. If the FF's had intended for the Constitution to be changed by JUDGES, instead of by the people, then why would there be an ammendment process at all?

Your logic is flawed.

I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty",

In your philosophy, all it'd take would be one judge, now wouldn't it? Sounds like an awfully unstable way to run a country, when it's basic precepts can be overturned by some guy wearing a black robe. Tell me: in your model, what's to prevent some appeals court judge from delcaring himself to be dictator, and that the Consitution is null and void?

although you seem like you'd like to do away with it.

Back with more later.....need food.

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

Oh, well.

I've just gotten back from a Constitutional Symposium held by the president of Patrick Henry College in Virginia. He's also in charge of the National Home School Defense Fund, and a big-wheel lawyer. He was quite informative on the numerous ways that the Supreme Court has screwed up over the years, among many other things. But the reason I'm posting this here is that he's undertaken the same project that I have: he wrote ten new ammendments to the Constitution. He's gonna e-mail them to me at some point, but I wanted to post what I finally came up with for the new Supreme Court.

--------------------
Section 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine Primary Justices, each appointed for a single, nine year term.

Section 2: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court are to be appointed in groups of three every three years, with each member of the group being appointed in a given year being chosen in a different method from any other in the group.

Section 3: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be appointed in the following manners:

a) Three are to be selected by the President of the United States and submitted to the Senate thereof for approval; such approval will take the form of a simple majority vote.
b) Three are to be selected by congress, and submitted to the president for approval once agreed upon by simple majority vote of both houses; if approval is not given, congress may override the necessity for presidential approval by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses.
c) Three are to be selected by the People, in the same manner as the selection of the President of the United States is to take place.

Section 4: When a person becomes a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, they shall, with all due haste, submit to the Congress their nominee for a Secondary Justice. The nominee for the position of Secondary Justice shall be installed as such unless blocked by either a simple majority in either house combined with an objection by the president, or a simple majority of both houses. In the event that the Primary Justice dies, retires, or is otherwise removed before the end of their nine year term, the Secondary Justice shall become a Primary Justice for the remainder of the term, and appoint their own Secondary in the same manner as they would had they been appointed as Primary. In the event of any vacancy in the position of Secondary Justice, the Primary shall appoint another in the same manner.

Section 5: Neither a Primary or Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may hold another position in the government of the United States. Nor shall anyone who has previously served as a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court be appointed to either position.

Section 6: In the event that a Secondary Justice deems their Primary to be unfit for duty for any reason, they shall transmit this belief to the other Primary Justices of the Supreme Court. The Secondary will then act as a Primary Justice until such time as their Primary Justice transmits to the Court that they are capable of resuming their duties, at which time the Primary will do so. However, if the Secondary Justice objects to this, then the Court shall hold a hearing as to the fitness of the Primary Justice.

Section 7: A Primary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a 2/3 majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 3/4 majority in both houses without said approval.

Section 8: A Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a simple majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 2/3 majority in both houses without said approval.

Section 9: Upon the request of either House of Congress by simple majority vote, or of the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States may be compelled to review any previous ruling requested of it.

Section 10: If a vacancy occurs in the position of Primary Justice, and no Secondary Justice has been appointed for that position, a new Primary Justice shall be appointed by the President of the United States to fill out the remainder of the term, in the manner outlined in Section 3a of this article of amendment.

Section 11: In the first year whose designation is divisible by three after this article is ratified, the three Supreme Court Justices of longest term shall step down, to be replaced by three selected in compliance with sections two and three of this article. After three years, the same shall occur, and again, after six.
--------------------

I think some form of due process is needed for section 6. And it should be the justices that decide, not the secondary justice alone.