"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers....."

[freedom_of_religion]

I'm on a role this week, two topics, guess the rebel in me is itching to come out.  I'm convinced that I'm destined for at best the terrestrial kingdom, because I just don't get all of the rules.

I live west of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and drive nearly 60 miles each way to work in Dallas. If I were to even attempt to drive the speed limit (at least on the way in when traffic is lighter, not much of an option on the way home) I am going to get killed impeding the flow of traffic. I can drive 70 mph in a 60 mph zone in the slow lane and still nearly get run over like I'm not even moving. These roads are not for the timid or faint of heart, but we have to work and make a living where the jobs are. We have been instructed to follow the "law of the land" and I find that virtually impossible in many circumstances, if only by sheer ignorance that there even is a law.  I was watching the news one night and saw that one county was lowering their speed limits, because a single judge determined that it would cause fewer emissions. This takes me to my second point.  What about when the lawmakers begin making laws because a special interest group "persuades" them to or as we all see when something tragic happens lawmakers jump on the bandwagon to make sure it never happens again by making another law. We've all heard of such ridiculous laws like "It is unlawful to walk one’s cow down Main Street after 1:00 PM on Sunday" or " Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs".  Google any search engine for number of laws in the United States and nobody even knows.  In a USA today article I found the following, "the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000" and that is just federal laws, not including state or local and we can't forget that there almost 75,000 pages of federal tax code. Is there a limit to "being subject to"?  I understand the need for laws and taxes, but by the 10's or 100's of thousands?  

Edited August 12, 2016 by freedom_of_religion
Changed rebellion to rebel

[Storm Rider]

Hello Freedom, I am overwhelmingly opposed to activist judges.  The nation would choose the right when reviewing appeals cases to determine that if a judge is or acts like an activist that the judge be relieved of their chair and thrown out of the legal profession.  Judges have become far too powerful in our country and they need to be stopped.

Following laws.  By choosing to ignore laws/rules, etc., we accept to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.  If we receive a speeding ticket we will pay it because we know we were breaking the law by speeding.  Being subject to the law does not mean that we obey all the laws, but that we are willing to participate in the consequences of breaking laws.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by Storm Rider

[freedom_of_religion]

I understand the repercussions of not obeying a law in the "earthly" sense, but what about at that judgement bar in front of the Lord when we're asked if we obeyed His commandments?

I'm certain that I'm not alone that "we" as a people are tired of being taxed and regulated to death. At what point is enough enough and the "being subject to" is overridden by some common sense?  We may may do our due diligence and vote for those that believe the same, that we think can make changes, but it's apparent that the vast majority (through who they vote for) must embrace the status quo and where we're headed as a nation. I'm reminded of the movie "Popeye" with Robbin Williams when the "Taxman" rides around on his bike and charges a tax for literally everything and made new ones up as he went along.  By the end of the movie Popeye knocks him off his bike and sent him rolling down the hill while the town cheered. The lawmakers are a joke and have made it a full time job to create new laws limiting what and what we cannot do while telling us they're just protecting us from ourselves while making sure that they write the law in such a way to exclude themselves and their "supporters".  It's like when I was managing our Distribution Center and making a "No food or drinks on the warehouse floor" rule and then walking across the floor drinking a coke and eating a hamburger, because the rule was for the warehouse personnel and not management. They want laws limiting our rights to own guns, only to be surrounded by armed bodyguards. If (when) they pass a law taking all of our guns away are we supposed to "obey" and turn them over just because we follow the laws of the land? Have a garage sale lately? Pay your taxes on those sales? I'm relatively certain that what we've turned into is not what our founders had envisioned when creating this country. Am I not a good LDS, because of this? Am I not a good citizen? Sorry to rant,but I hate to feel that I am "sinning" because I don't happily line up to follow laws and those that make them, because "we believe in being subject to..."

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, freedom_of_religion said:

I'm convinced that I'm destined for at best the terrestrial kingdom, because I just don't get all of the rules.

Well, you at least seem to get that obedience to rules determines our situation in the next life.

That's a lot more than some people.  Some people seem to think that they will receive blessings without living the corresponding laws.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, freedom_of_religion said:

I understand the repercussions of not obeying a law in the "earthly" sense, but what about at that judgement bar in front of the Lord when we're asked if we obeyed His commandments?

His laws are not grievous to be born. When one understands even a little about Judaism, one will come to understand what Yeshua was talking about with the Pharisees. The Pharisees became prideful, and eventually determined that God had given them the power to make the rules. So for instance a good Jew had to put on his right shoe first, but had to then put on his left shoe and tie it before he could tie his right. Jesus condemned the regulations of the Pharisees, who did not follow the law of Moses. The law of the Lord is fairly easy to follow...one only need ask if I do this, am I loving my neighbor? If the answer is no, then it is against the law.

Quote

I'm certain that I'm not alone that "we" as a people are tired of being taxed and regulated to death. At what point is enough enough and the "being subject to" is overridden by some common sense?  We may may do our due diligence and vote for those that believe the same, that we think can make changes, but it's apparent that the vast majority (through who they vote for) must embrace the status quo and where we're headed as a nation. I'm reminded of the movie "Popeye" with Robbin Williams when the "Taxman" rides around on his bike and charges a tax for literally everything and made new ones up as he went along.  By the end of the movie Popeye knocks him off his bike and sent him rolling down the hill while the town cheered. The lawmakers are a joke and have made it a full time job to create new laws limiting what and what we cannot do while telling us they're just protecting us from ourselves while making sure that they write the law in such a way to exclude themselves and their "supporters".  It's like when I was managing our Distribution Center and making a "No food or drinks on the warehouse floor" rule and then walking across the floor drinking a coke and eating a hamburger, because the rule was for the warehouse personnel and not management. They want laws limiting our rights to own guns, only to be surrounded by armed bodyguards. If (when) they pass a law taking all of our guns away are we supposed to "obey" and turn them over just because we follow the laws of the land? Have a garage sale lately? Pay your taxes on those sales? I'm relatively certain that what we've turned into is not what our founders had envisioned when creating this country. Am I not a good LDS, because of this? Am I not a good citizen? Sorry to rant,but I hate to feel that I am "sinning" because I don't happily line up to follow laws and those that make them, because "we believe in being subject to..."

Most of those laws and regulations of the US do not apply to you. You don't need to know the 70,000 pages of the tax code pertaining to Obama care (of the 75,000 pages you mentioned ) but just get to pay the penalty specified in your tax return if you don't have insurance. Most fed regulations are quite specialized and pertain to specific areas of business. You only need to know them if you conduct business in that area - and yes, then you are probably going to have a lawyer bill. I am not saying there are not too many regulations and bureaucrats (and of course the liberals want more). But we are generally not overburdened as citizens by our laws, and should try to follow them, and to render unto "Caesar" what is his, and try to change perceived injustices from within by electing out bad officials. At least we CAN do that - many other countries cannot.

P.S. I am surprised to hear about your speeders. I found Texas not to be lax in that area, but perhaps those Dallas cops are laxidasical. 

[thesometimesaint]

The Articles of Faith are not a suicide pact.  We follow the law, and seek to change the objectionable ones. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Freedom, I am overwhelmingly opposed to activist judges.  The nation would choose the right when reviewing appeals cases to determine that if a judge is or acts like an activist that the judge be relieved of their chair and thrown out of the legal profession.  Judges have become far too powerful in our country and they need to be stopped.

Following laws.  By choosing to ignore laws/rules, etc., we accept to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.  If we receive a speeding ticket we will pay it because we know we were breaking the law by speeding.  Being subject to the law does not mean that we obey all the laws, but that we are willing to participate in the consequences of breaking laws.  

Nonsense, Stormy.  An "activist" judge is any judge who doesn't do what you like.  Perhaps you'd prefer toads on the bench who hop to the tune of a particular partisan POV.  Independent judges are always going to make someone angry.  It goes with the territory.

There are several different types of laws:  (1) the written law, and (2) the de facto law.  Legislators write laws, executives issue regulations, and judges create precedents (stare decisis).  All are part of the written law (both statutory and constitutional).  However, there is also the law which a cop will cite or arrest you for, and that a jury will find you guilty of, and for which a judge will fine or jail you.  That is the real law.  So, on the road, you must generally move with the flow of traffic, regardless of posted speed limits.  That ordinarily means up to ten miles an hour over the speed limit is acceptable, but don't press your luck.  In addition, if you are able to afford expensive legal talent, you can probably get away with murder.

[thesometimesaint]

Here is California most, but not all, traffic cops won't give you a ticket for going 5 mph over the speed limit; 10 mph you're taking your chances; 15 mph you're asking for a ticket.

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, freedom_of_religion said:

I'm on a role this week, two topics, guess the rebel in me is itching to come out.  I'm convinced that I'm destined for at best the terrestrial kingdom, because I just don't get all of the rules.

I live west of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex and drive nearly 60 miles each way to work in Dallas. If I were to even attempt to drive the speed limit (at least on the way in when traffic is lighter, not much of an option on the way home) I am going to get killed impeding the flow of traffic. I can drive 70 mph in a 60 mph zone in the slow lane and still nearly get run over like I'm not even moving. These roads are not for the timid or faint of heart, but we have to work and make a living where the jobs are. We have been instructed to follow the "law of the land" and I find that virtually impossible in many circumstances, if only by sheer ignorance that there even is a law.  I was watching the news one night and saw that one county was lowering their speed limits, because a single judge determined that it would cause fewer emissions. This takes me to my second point.  What about when the lawmakers begin making laws because a special interest group "persuades" them to or as we all see when something tragic happens lawmakers jump on the bandwagon to make sure it never happens again by making another law. We've all heard of such ridiculous laws like "It is unlawful to walk one’s cow down Main Street after 1:00 PM on Sunday" or " Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs".  Google any search engine for number of laws in the United States and nobody even knows.  In a USA today article I found the following, "the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000" and that is just federal laws, not including state or local and we can't forget that there almost 75,000 pages of federal tax code. Is there a limit to "being subject to"?  I understand the need for laws and taxes, but by the 10's or 100's of thousands?  

The main reason why we can't possible obey all the laws of our land, is because the government itself doesn't even obey the supreme laws of the land.... the constitution.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The main reason why we can't possible obey all the laws of our land, is because the government itself doesn't even obey the supreme laws of the land.... the constitution.

CFR.

[carbon dioxide]

We do live in the land of the free?  So clearly we need more laws than we have now.  The "land of the free" has more people in jail than any other nation in the world.  Look how people judge Congress.  They judge it by the amount of legislation they pass. If Congress, passes a lot of bill, people cheer.  If Congress does nothing, they complain.  It should be the opposite.  We should want Congress to meet as little as possible.  That only means more freedom for the people.  I like it when Obama goes golfing.  He should play an 18 round every day.  He can't harm the American people if he is putting on the green.

Edited August 12, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, Stormy.  An "activist" judge is any judge who doesn't do what you like.  Perhaps you'd prefer toads on the bench who hop to the tune of a particular partisan POV.  Independent judges are always going to make someone angry.  It goes with the territory.

There are several different types of laws:  (1) the written law, and (2) the de facto law.  Legislators write laws, executives issue regulations, and judges create precedents (stare decisis).  All are part of the written law (both statutory and constitutional).  However, there is also the law which a cop will cite or arrest you for, and that a jury will find you guilty of, and for which a judge will fine or jail you.  That is the real law.  So, on the road, you must generally move with the flow of traffic, regardless of posted speed limits.  That ordinarily means up to ten miles an hour over the speed limit is acceptable, but don't press your luck.  In addition, if you are able to afford expensive legal talent, you can probably get away with murder.

In my professional career I was pension fund manager.  One of the assets the pension owned participated in a bankruptcy hearing for a tenant in a retail asset.  Representing the Fund I had a very minor role and testified in the court proceeding. After several months the judge enter her decision and, according to our Fund attorneys she created law out of thin air.  They said that nothing supported her position, but she was the judge so whatever she determined was the law was the law regardless if there was no precedent.  

An activist judge, in the context of which I speak, is this type of judge.  They create their own, novel interpretation of the law and then apply to whatever they choose, or think, is best.  I reject this type of judicial activism.  I believe that the creation of law, the novel application of current law, belongs solely to the Legislative Branch and has nothing to do with the Judicial Branch of government.  The Judicial Branch should limit their activity strictly to what is current law and avoid any situation that could be seen as creating precedent.  They must strictly depend on the Legislative Branch for any creation of law.

I also reject partisan judges such as we observe on the Supreme Court and in other courts that are clearly partisan and have evolved to be ever more so at present.  My personal preferences having nothing to do with the matter.  However, I want to have confidence that the decision of a court is fair, reliable, consistent with current law.  

Agreed, there do seem to be individuals and families that are able to get away with murder - Chappaquid**** Island comes immediately to mind.  The Clintons also seem to be made of Teflon; however, this is a different, but also serious problem with our legal system.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

 

We are not a "free people", and never have been, to do anything we want without consequence. Such is anarchy and not freedom. There are very real consequences of Congress doing nothing, all of them bad. Obama isn't in Congress. In a nation of over 330 million people we need laws just to function.

[waveslider]

38 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

CFR.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I have said:

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

The main reason why we can't possible obey all the laws of our land, is because the government itself doesn't even obey the supreme laws of the land.... the constitution.

The main reason why we can't possibly obey all the laws of our land, and still remain a free people, is because the government itself doesn't even obey the supreme laws of the land..... the constitution.

It is because the government has far overreached it's bounds. It has subjected us to being at odds while trying to exercise our rights as citizens, and obeying the overreaching laws. For instance if I were to exercise my right, as outlined in the 2nd, amendment, here in the state of Hawaii, by possessing a firearm and using it to defend myself, I would be arrested and thrown in jail:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Constitution, Amendments

If I, or you, or anyone within the U.S., whether citizen or not, were suspected of terrorism, we wouldn't even be able to have due process of law to defend ourselves from the false accusation, if the NDAA for the fiscal year of 2012, sections 1021 and 1022 (which, by the way, are in still in full effect to be enforced to this very day) were to be enforced. We could be legally detained, tortured, or even killed all legally, according to this law, just for being accused, in a land where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, guilty without any chance of being proven innocent:

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ndaa_publaw.pdf

Scroll down the pdf to pages 266 and 267, to save you all the time it would take to find these unconstitutional clauses in this law.

There are tons and tons more of examples I can CFR if you like, but it might do you service to just study the constitution and take a good look at what else might be infringing upon it. The constitution was meant to restrain the government, not us. It is the law that the government is supposed to uphold. It isn't even very many pages, whereas the laws that govern us are so extensive that it takes lawyers and judges to even interpret them, in yet more of an over reach of power.

Perhaps we should ask questions like; Who is in charge of the issuance and contraction of money (Hint, the term, "Coin," isn't meant for just metal coins, but rather as creation. As in the us of it in a sentence like this; "So and so coined that phrase.)? Who is in charge of tax collection? Is the congress, or some other entity that can't be voted in our out of these controlling positions? It sure isn't what the constitution has outlined:

 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
 To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
U.S. Constitution, Article 1

[thesometimesaint]

 

Then join the US military. it wasn't until 2008 that the USSC applied to individual citizens the right to bear arms.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

One clear case of Congressional over-reach.

US Constitution Amendment 16.

SEE http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment16.html

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

We are not a "free people", and never have been, to do anything we want without consequence. Such is anarchy and not freedom. There are very real consequences of Congress doing nothing, all of them bad. Obama isn't in Congress. In a nation of over 330 million people we need laws just to function.

Of course we need laws but we don't need thousands upon thousands of laws.  There are so many laws that we probably break some of them every week without even knowing it.

[waveslider]

12 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

Then join the US military. it wasn't until 2008 that the USSC applied to individual citizens the right to bear arms.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

One clear case of Congressional over-reach.

US Constitution Amendment 16.

SEE http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment16.html

I'm far too old to join the military. They wouldn't have me, but even then, here in Hawaii you wouldn't be able to use a gun in self defense without going to jail immediately afterwards, unless you went on the lam and didn't get caught.

[carbon dioxide]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

Then join the US military. it wasn't until 2008 that the USSC applied to individual citizens the right to bear arms.

 

The 2nd Amendment was never about the right of the government to form an army and arming that army.  If that was the case, every nation, empire, since the dawn of time had its own version of the 2nd Amendment.  All oppressive nations have always used their armies as a force to take freedom away from the people.  All oppressive governments use their military forces to keep the people down.  The US military is not the force that keeps us a free state.  They sure do not protect American citizens against the government.  The government owns them.

Edited August 12, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

In my professional career I was pension fund manager.  One of the assets the pension owned participated in a bankruptcy hearing for a tenant in a retail asset.  Representing the Fund I had a very minor role and testified in the court proceeding. After several months the judge enter her decision and, according to our Fund attorneys she created law out of thin air.  They said that nothing supported her position, but she was the judge so whatever she determined was the law was the law regardless if there was no precedent.  

An activist judge, in the context of which I speak, is this type of judge.  They create their own, novel interpretation of the law and then apply to whatever they choose, or think, is best.  I reject this type of judicial activism.  I believe that the creation of law, the novel application of current law, belongs solely to the Legislative Branch and has nothing to do with the Judicial Branch of government.  The Judicial Branch should limit their activity strictly to what is current law and avoid any situation that could be seen as creating precedent.  They must strictly depend on the Legislative Branch for any creation of law.

I also reject partisan judges such as we observe on the Supreme Court and in other courts that are clearly partisan and have evolved to be ever more so at present.  My personal preferences having nothing to do with the matter.  However, I want to have confidence that the decision of a court is fair, reliable, consistent with current law.  

Agreed, there do seem to be individuals and families that are able to get away with murder - Chappaquid**** Island comes immediately to mind.  The Clintons also seem to be made of Teflon; however, this is a different, but also serious problem with our legal system.  

Politics often enters into the appointment of judges, and one can almost predict which side will be favored simply based on who appointed them.  This applies to federal and state judges, all of whom must interpret legislation, the Constitution, and precedent (stare decisis).  In doing so, they will look at legislative intent, decisions by other courts, and the like.  Without judges to make all such decisions, we would have to fall back on the old fashioned way of deciding disputes -- blood feuds.  That is what civilization is all about:  It does not guarantee that all decisions will be correct, but only that a decision will be made.  In most such cases, it is possible to appeal.  Through it all, perfection is not attainable, something you seem unable to accept.

So called judicial "activism" is engaged in by both left and right wing judges, who frequently declare that only the other side does it.  You appear to have no training in the law, so fail to understand why it functions as it does.  Perhaps you would like to suggest a better system, say the Continental European legal system, based on the Code Napoleon -- which is in turn based on Roman Law -- or some other system.  What do you prefer?  What would be an improvement on the Anglo-American system?  And could explain why?

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Politics often enters into the appointment of judges, and one can almost predict which side will be favored simply based on who appointed them.  This applies to federal and state judges, all of whom must interpret legislation, the Constitution, and precedent (stare decisis).  In doing so, they will look at legislative intent, decisions by other courts, and the like.  Without judges to make all such decisions, we would have to fall back on the old fashioned way of deciding disputes -- blood feuds.  That is what civilization is all about:  It does not guarantee that all decisions will be correct, but only that a decision will be made.  In most such cases, it is possible to appeal.  Through it all, perfection is not attainable, something you seem unable to accept.

So called judicial "activism" is engaged in by both left and right wing judges, who frequently declare that only the other side does it.  You appear to have no training in the law, so fail to understand why it functions as it does.  Perhaps you would like to suggest a better system, say the Continental European legal system, based on the Code Napoleon -- which is in turn based on Roman Law -- or some other system.  What do you prefer?  What would be an improvement on the Anglo-American system?  And could explain why?

You guessed correctly, I am not a lawyer and my legal studies stopped at business law.  Thankfully, one is not required to be an expert in a given field in order to evaluate it or see weaknesses.

I do not think nor have I indicated that judicial activism is perpetrated only by a specific "side".  I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is incorrect.  Any form of judicial activism -  where a judge creates new precedent or new law - should be avoided.  I am not recommending that a judge not use common sense based on his/her interpretation of the law, but the creation of law belongs to the Legislative Branch.  You seem to infer that this is not the case of our legal system.  Maybe you can instruct me - what branch of government is responsible for creating/writing law in our system?  

I don't recommend any other legal system; however, I would prefer that our own system function as it was designed.  Of course, based on your answer maybe I am mistaken and the Judicial system is actually responsible for the creation of laws in our country.  

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense, Stormy.  An "activist" judge is any judge who doesn't do what you like.  Perhaps you'd prefer toads on the bench who hop to the tune of a particular partisan POV.  Independent judges are always going to make someone angry.  It goes with the territory.

There are several different types of laws:  (1) the written law, and (2) the de facto law.  Legislators write laws, executives issue regulations, and judges create precedents (stare decisis).  All are part of the written law (both statutory and constitutional).  However, there is also the law which a cop will cite or arrest you for, and that a jury will find you guilty of, and for which a judge will fine or jail you.  That is the real law.  So, on the road, you must generally move with the flow of traffic, regardless of posted speed limits.  That ordinarily means up to ten miles an hour over the speed limit is acceptable, but don't press your luck.  In addition, if you are able to afford expensive legal talent, you can probably get away with murder.

The main reason we have "activist judges" is our legislators are terrible at legislating. Law tends to be written in broad and non-specific ways. If the law is unclear the judge has to make a decision and that has to happen all the time. If you want to get rid of judicial activism start with the legislature and demand more concise and specific law. I feel bad for judges. They are given bad legislation and have to make the call. They can't send it back to the legislature for clarification.

 

[BCSpace]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The main reason we have "activist judges" is our legislators are terrible at legislating. Law tends to be written in broad and non-specific ways. If the law is unclear the judge has to make a decision and that has to happen all the time. If you want to get rid of judicial activism start with the legislature and demand more concise and specific law. I feel bad for judges. They are given bad legislation and have to make the call. They can't send it back to the legislature for clarification.

 

Except that now the judges are legislating from the bench, changing the law before declaring it constitutional.  Changing the law is the purview of Congress.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, BCSpace said:

Except that now the judges are legislating from the bench, changing the law before declaring it constitutional.  Changing the law is the purview of Congress.

And if the legislature did their job well judges would not be in circumstances where they could do this and sometimes have to do it. People screaming at activist judges are screaming at the logical consequences and not the actual cause of the problem. Some judges are not very good at their jobs but our legislators are far worse at their jobs yet we keep electing the dumbos. We should really stop.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You guessed correctly, I am not a lawyer and my legal studies stopped at business law.  Thankfully, one is not required to be an expert in a given field in order to evaluate it or see weaknesses.

I do not think nor have I indicated that judicial activism is perpetrated only by a specific "side".  I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion, but it is incorrect.  Any form of judicial activism -  where a judge creates new precedent or new law - should be avoided.  I am not recommending that a judge not use common sense based on his/her interpretation of the law, but the creation of law belongs to the Legislative Branch.  You seem to infer that this is not the case of our legal system.  Maybe you can instruct me - what branch of government is responsible for creating/writing law in our system?  

I don't recommend any other legal system; however, I would prefer that our own system function as it was designed.  Of course, based on your answer maybe I am mistaken and the Judicial system is actually responsible for the creation of laws in our country.  

You seem to be under the impression that the judiciary does not write law, and that they shouldn't, which ignores the long accepted principle of the precedent of prior decisions (look up stare decisis), based on review of appelate courts -- an effort at fairness in applying the law similarly in all cases -- and goes back centuries into the origin of the Anglo-American system, based heavily on the Danelaw (a Viking concept) and upon the French legal principles brought into England in 1066 by William the Conqueror.  This was further developed through centuries of common law.  Judges and lawyers would be irresponsible if they did not systematize the details and cite their sources.  Far from creating new law, judges are bogged down by legal rules and precedent.  In nearly every instance, complaints of judicial activism are based on dislike of the decision, and not on an understanding of the case and its relation to case law generally.  It already functions the way it was designed, and nearly any decision can be appealed (you seem unaware of that).

All three branches of our government write law of various kinds.  They always have.  Of course the focus of each branch is of one kind, with many other cross-cutting responsibilities:  The legislature writes laws, but can and does conduct investigations in order to determine which laws are needed, and can even sit in judgment over executives and judges who are determined to need impeaching (a judicial activity).  In so doing, they can issue subpoenas and even imprison people who refuse to cooperate.  The same applies to police and prosecutors (part of the executive branch), who conduct investigations and grand jury hearings, and can imprison people who refuse to cooperate.  The executive is empowered to issue regulations and to direct a huge security and intel apparatus -- and the armed forces without a declaration of war.  This includes conducting assassinations and snatch & grab operations worldwide when deemed appropriate.  All such extra-judicial ops are normally allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Pragmatism always dominates the way in which the elites from the different branches interact to conduct such ops.  You may not like the way it takes place, and you may object, but that is the government which you and your fellow citizens elected and retain in office (regardless of political party).  I  predict that you will continue to elect that sort of government.

Do I complain about various actions by the three branches of government?  Of course.  Nearly all of us do.  That is inevitable.  However, it is functioning the way it was designed, in herky-jerky fashion. That was the intention of the framers of the Constitution.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Except that now the judges are legislating from the bench, changing the law before declaring it constitutional.  Changing the law is the purview of Congress.

That is a common misconception, and people grouse about it quite often.  Judges do what they have always done.  They make decisions.  Are those the "correct" decisions?  That is a value judgment, and the judge and his appellate system retain the right to decide whether it is "correct."  In jury trials, the citizens make the decisions, the judge merely acting as referee and legal advisor.  None of us wants to see an innocent man convicted, and we don't like to think that an unjust decision is made.  However, that happens all the time.  It is more important that there be a decision so as to prevent a less civilized way of deciding the issue.  Any decision is better than that.