| Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/ | |
| Here we go! http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1573 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | thebishopp [ Mon 06 Mar 2006 13:19 ] |
| Post subject: | Here we go! |
Awhile back we talked about supreme court rulings and how a lot of states pass laws in direct violation of those rulings. Here is a prime example, and something a lot of us said would happen once roberts got installed as supreme court justice. Excerpts from article below: ------------------ PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest. The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. Under the new law, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state’s only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court. -------------------------------- |
|
| Author: | HoundDog [ Mon 06 Mar 2006 13:28 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I had a debate on whether or not to forward this news since it does not concern our industry. However in a different way it does, if the states overide the Supreme Court and it holds water (which I doubt) then we are in for a heck of a time over TvT. |
|
| Author: | thebishopp [ Mon 06 Mar 2006 17:35 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I believe that it relates direclty to our field in that it would set a dangerous precedent. Should this State be successful in it's endeavors it will become more of the status quo for States wishing to enact whatever laws they wish regardless of the Constitutionality of said laws. They need to lose this case and they need to lose it big. It needs to cost them so much money that it makes such manuevers seen as too expensive and as an example to other States that they can't just pass laws without regard to the Constitution or current USSC interpretations of that law. |
|
| Author: | HoundDog [ Tue 07 Mar 2006 09:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I barely got the rumblings this morning on the news, I think that they are already going to be challenged as far as the Supreme Court goes. Maybe someone could clarify this I, caught it on the back side of the report this morning. |
|
| Author: | V-Rod [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 08:55 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Being a Constitutionalists and believing in States rights. I have no problem with any State enacting a Law like that. If you don’t like it, move to another state or vote out the elected officials behind the law. That’s what the framers had in mind when the Constitution was written. The Federal Government isn’t supposed to enact Laws that restrict States rights in this manner. And certainly the Supreme Court isn’t supposed to create Law. If you read the Constitution it is much more clear. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1 |
|
| Author: | thebishopp [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 15:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
You have got to be kidding. If you were truly a "constitutionalist" you would see the error in your post. You have forgotten entirely the rights of the citizen in your statement "The Federal Government isn’t supposed to enact Laws that restrict States rights in this manner". Are you saying that States can enact Laws which restrict Citizen rights in this manner? The purpose of the Constitution was to guarantee and detail the rights of the Federal Govt. The State and the Citizen. The founding fathers were afraid of tyranny and dictatorship. Do you really think that their intention was to turn states into dictators? The supreme court does not "create" law... they interpret current law to determine if it is "Constitutional" . They step in to rule on items of a Constitutional Nature or Special Importance. In 1973, in the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provided a fundamental right for women to obtain abortions. The decision was by no means unanimous. Two of the justices, White and Rehnquist, dissented. oh yes... here is the Original Supreme Court Jurisdiction: (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties; (2) All controversies between the United States and a State; (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens. The Supreme Court is supposed to ensure that all levels of Govt. are passing laws which are "Constitutional". Granted that does not always happen but that is it's purpose. Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution. Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note Section 1 - Judicial powers 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 Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and 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 thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.) 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 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. Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CIITZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ----------------------------- pay particular attention to the statements in caps. |
|
| Author: | AWOBB [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 15:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree with some of you guys. I think that if a woman gets rape by man who's sick in the head Cause he has notthing eles to do in his life and she happens to get pregant by that man who rape her, she should have the right to get read of that baby. I mean if my wife or daughts got rape by a sick-o, ( which I hope that never happens to them) I think they should have that right to get read of that baby. That's my 2 cents about this. |
|
| Author: | Rob Graff [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 17:00 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Some people really need to get a spell check program and learn to write in complete sentences! |
|
| Author: | -X- [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 17:30 ] |
| Post subject: | |
ROFLAO!!! HAHAHAAHAAHA!!! |
|
| Author: | AWOBB [ Wed 15 Mar 2006 21:02 ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know guys! Maybe we all don't have the right grammer you all have. How's that? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |