From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 12 Sep 1992 05:23:59 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <FThEr*jY0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>In article <Bu8JKz.4GM@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:
>> recently w.r.t. Mr. Bush's nominees. If you will recall your own
>> civics class, Mr. Prichett, the Supreme Court is the body
>> empowered to decide the constitutionality of any legislative act
>> initiated by the legislative or executive branches. If a chief
>Go check your civics class again.  The Supreme Court empowered itself to do
>that job.  (Hint:  go read about John Marshall.)

Article III, sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution:

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
     vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
     Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
     both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices
     during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
     for their Services, a Compensation which shall not be diminished
     during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law
     and in Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
     United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,
     under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
     other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty
     and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the
     United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two
     or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another state;
     -- between Citizens of different States, -- between Citizens of
     the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
     and between a State, or the Citizens therof, and foreign States,
     Citizens, or Subjects.

        In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
     Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme
     Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
     mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate Jurisdiction,
     both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such
     Regulations as the Congress shall make.

        The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,
     shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the
     State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but
     when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at
     such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
     directed. 

Now, Jim. If a state law is in question, a state is certainly a
party to the case, which places it explicitly under the appelate
jurisdiction of the court. If a federal law is in questions, the
United States -- represented by the lawmaking body of the United
States Goverment, Congress -- is clearly a party to the case, and
thus again is explicitly within the Supreme Court's delegated
constitutional powers.

>> executive can ensure that the members of the Supreme Court will
>> approve his actions through gratitude or political paybacks,
>> suddenly a great deal of unpleasantness aimed at social and
>> ethnic minorities becomes possible.
                             ^^^^^^^^

Note the word "possible". It's important.

>There is no evidence that the Reagan/Bush appointees act as a
>block on every issue. 
>Nor is there any evidence that they do so upon request from Reagan or Bush.

Nor did I claim they did. I simply said that there was a great
deal of concern that Mr. Bush has been able to select a number of
candidates that generally agree with his stated opinions. _So
far_, the Supreme Court seems to be acting responsibly and with
some amount of conscience. 

>Actually, the justices were accused of being anti-abortion, but their votes on
>that issue don't match up to that accusation.  There is no control of justices
>after they are appointed. 

I think you understimate the amount of political pressure that
can be brought to bear on someone in Washington. The Federal
Reserve chairman is not a presidential appointee, yet he was
bullied into reducing interest rates against his better judgement
and the principles of good economics. 

> Go check your civics text again.  

I did -- my civics text was the United States Constitution. My
school district refused to predigest it for me, and was gracious
enough to require me to read the original documents and draw my
own conclusions. See above.

>Even if such control
>existed, why does that mean that racist assualts on civil rights would result?

See above. I said "possible" not "inevitable".

>> King is not an exact description, but even you can't claim that
>> President Bush lives with the same kind of restrictions on his
>> life that you and I do.
>Neither does Tom Foley.  So, do we call him "King Tom"?

The Speaker of the House is not empowered by the Constitution to
lead the nation. The President is. I don't necessarily trust Tom
Foley either -- he is a professional politician, and he's
entirely too good at it to make me comfortable. Politics is the
art of compromise, and high political office requires a lot of
compromises. 

>> >[ .. Jim thinks that Ben and I are elitists ...]
>> "If I have the choice, I prefer to be governed by the competent.
>> If I have no choice, I am obligated to act in such a way as to
>> facilitate the creation of a choice." - Robespierre
>
>Very dangerous.

Only to the inept, the stupid, and the willingly blind. If that
makes me elitist, then so be it. 


>                                                Jim Pritchett


-- 
David Boyes
dboyes@rice.edu