[Klorissana]

Wait. What's wrong with crafting legislation specifically enough that it doesn't violate a court's judgement, but does something akin, but not nearly as sweeping, to what was struck down?

[interbaoui]

Wait. What's wrong with crafting legislation specifically enough that it doesn't violate a court's judgement, but does something akin, but not nearly as sweeping, to what was struck down?

Imagine two brothers, and the older one has a nasty habit of punching the younger one. Mom and Dad say, "Stop punching your little brother." So instead he kicks his little brother in the nuts.

That's basically your proposal. The Constitution prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." SCOTUS ruled that it applies to campaign contributions from corporations. Either amend the Constitution to eliminate freedom of speech, or walk away with your tail between your legs.

[MinisuipGaicai]

Or eliminate the Supreme Court. You still need an Amendment, and even if you do it, what entity has original jurisdiction for disputes between states, for example, and who is the ultimate appellate authority for Constitutional questions and/or federal law?

[Ternneowns]

They'd just mess up the country out of stupidity. I'd do it out of spite.

[SteantyjetMaw]

Yes really, Congress has control over the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. And constitutional questions are not in the court's original jurisdiction except if they are raised somehow raised in one of the categories the court has original jurisdiction over.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Marbury, held that the Supreme's court original adjudication could not be expanded or contracted.

esides, you really want Congress in charge of ruling on the legality of the laws they pass? Better than an unelected, unrepresentative group of lawyers.

[intorkercet]

Additionally, I'd rather have unelected lawyers who aren't beholden to voters (ie, easily manipulated idiots) than elected lawyers who are beholden to special interest groups and voters who don't have a ****ing clue what's going on. So, you would just rather not have a democracy.

Finally, this argument is sorta off on a tangent, in that the original point stands - the best way to get around a SCOTUS decision is to pass an Amendment, especially given the level of support one would seem to have in this case. Or just wait for the political composition of the court to change, probably would be faster.

[SAUNDERSAN]

Given that we don't have a democracy, and were never intended to have one, I'm gonna have to

But yes, I absolutely do not favor democracy. Which shouldn't imply that I favor totalitarianism, either. What I'm in favor of is a system much like the US originally set up in 1783, with a highly restrictive (of government) Constitution, darkies in the fields, women in the kitchen, a bicameral legislature (a people's house and a house for the States), and a Supreme Court, although I would have written Marbury v. Madison into the original Constitution.

FTFY

I suppose I'd support an amendment, though a lot would depend on the precise wording of it.

[mealiusarses]

As for blacks, I've recently read some interesting viewpoints that the "60% rule" was actually intended to REDUCE the representation of Southern slaveholders. IE, if blacks were 100% represented according to population, it's not as if they would have been electing representatives to Congress - it just would have meant more slave holding South Carolinans and Georgians to counteract the Northern (ie, non-slave holding) vote.

Well, yeah. The 3/5ths was a compromise to keep the southern states from walking out. At least, that's what my HS history class said. I'm too bloody lazy to read the constitution to argue with you, so we'll say you're right until Imran or somebody weighs in; that was a "ha-ha DF hates women and minorities" throwaway gag. I'd have made it an iPod barb if I could figure out how.

[Gscvbhhv]

the north didn't want slaves to count toward representation, the south did (of course). So they compromised and slaves would count as 3/5ths of a free person. Obviously free blacks were counted like other non-slaves.

[Bemapayople]

sigh - libertarian nutjobs . . .

[Coollabioto]

yup, how dare the Constitution get in our way

Amen. It's our Constitution anyway.... Isn't it?

[Fetowip]

Probably because, despite their feigned indignation at the SCOTU ruling, Congress critters like receiving boatloads of money from campaign donors.

I have a hard time getting excited about the ruling either way, it's not like congress isn't bought and paid for by special interests as we speak.

Oh ****...

[adolfadsermens]

Added to that the political acumen of Marshall, who denied the Federalist appointee, Marbury, his post, which the Jefferson administration would be very happy about, even though the administration was pissed at this assertion of judicial review (though they'd rather prevent Adams' Midnight Appointees from being seated... Jefferson's administration would try to take its revenge out later by attempting to impeach Supreme Court justices, but Aaron Burr, who was at odds with the rest of the administration by that point, saved the day).