Bush or Kerry?

[Kristina]

Originally Posted by Ryan Albright

Its more that i dont have anything against him. ITs the fact that it would take a ratification of the Constitution which is very hard and takes up resources. To ratify the constitution it takes a 2/3 vote of the Congress and if it gets out of there then it has to go to the states for a 2/3 votes and i just dont see it happening

I don't necessarily agree that just because it is difficult to add a new amendment, then we should keep it the way that it is. I'm sitting here next to my box of 500 constitutions (don't ask) and looking at some great amendments we have that went through that exhausting process...I may be slightly biased to the 19th being my favorite. Whether something should change should be a matter of how pertinent and important it is to a country, and the pros and cons of the issue; not how logistically difficult it is. If it is important enough, change will happen, as it has 27 times (well more like 18 times since the bill of rights was one bulk package and then there were 17 more amendments).

Moreover, who ever said politicians today aren't ready for a good fight on amendments? It may be just used as a wedge issue but enough Republicans have been fighting to make the Federal Marriage Amendment a front and center topic. The difficulty of making this an actual amendment, coupled with overwhelming opposition (myself being one), didn't stop them.

This isn't a post advocating or protesting the citizenship requirement for the Presidency. That's another time, another thread. I guess to tie this back into the original topic of the thread, my message is don't stop fighting for something just because you don't think you can make a difference or it's difficult, especially in this election. Whether you live in a blue state, a red state, a swing state...whether you're a Kerry, Bush, or even Nader supporter...whether you can or cannot vote...it's always important to learn about the issues, get active, and make your voice be heard.

[Ryan Albright]

Originally Posted by Kristina

This isn't a post advocating or protesting the citizenship requirement for the Presidency. That's another time, another thread. I guess to tie this back into the original topic of the thread, my message is don't stop fighting for something just because you don't think you can make a difference or it's difficult, especially in this election. Whether you live in a blue state, a red state, a swing state...whether you're a Kerry, Bush, or even Nader supporter...whether you can or cannot vote...it's always important to learn about the issues, get active, and make your voice be heard.

i Def agree with you on everyone makes a difference. I def learned that in 2000 in Florida. This election i am out campaigning for the candidate that i want to win. I encourage everyone to learn the issues and make there decscion. The worste thing i think someone could do is not know the issues and vote for someone becasue thats who there parents voted for.

As my government professor said this could be the biggest election in history.
Let me explain his logic why and after hearing it i also agree with him.

As everyone knows there is 9 supreme court justices and when you are approved for the supreme court the term is for life. Well within the next four years one has already said she will retire (dont remember her name) and there are few that are well into age that might not make it to the next election. So if you put two and two together there is basically a possiblity of 4-5 vacant spots in the supreme court. Now since the president appoints these people whoever is in office is going to pick from there party. So if the assumption is correct at the end of four years in the supreme court we could have total switch of power. Please correct me if i am wrong but i am pretty sure the supreme court is democratic as of now. So now if this does happen the way things have been decided will totally change if a republican is president So please everyone if you can vote learn the issues and vote.

*NOTE: i will not say who i am in favor for becasue that debate should not be for Chiefdelphi. I did vote on the poll tho.

[Ryan M.]

Originally Posted by Ryan Albright

As everyone knows there is 9 supreme court justices and when you are approved for the supreme court the term is for life....Please correct me if i am wrong but i am pretty sure the supreme court is democratic as of now. So now if this does happen the way things have been decided will totally change if a republican is president So please everyone if you can vote learn the issues and vote.

I hate to take this thread even further off topic, but I have to say that a "total change of power" from Democratic to Republican in the Supreme Court wouldn't be a huge thing, and definitely wouldn't make this election the most important in history. I'm not just saying that because I'm Republican (and yes, my parents are Republican, but I tend to agree with more conservative views anyway), but because our county has gone on since its beginning with different people in power, and these people haven't always had the same views on things.

My point is that although it might initially seem like a disaster to you if the Supreme Court were no long Democratic, our country has been run by people on every side of the fence and hasn't been destroyed.

[Ryan Albright]

Originally Posted by Ryan Morehart

I hate to take this thread even further off topic, but I have to say that a "total change of power" from Democratic to Republican in the Supreme Court wouldn't be a huge thing, and definitely wouldn't make this election the most important in history. I'm not just saying that because I'm Republican (and yes, my parents are Republican, but I tend to agree with more conservative views anyway), but because our county has gone on since its beginning with different people in power, and these people haven't always had the same views on things.

My point is that although it might initially seem like a disaster to you if the Supreme Court were no long Democratic, our country has been run by people on every side of the fence and hasn't been destroyed.

Um it could be a poteintally big thing and no i am not goint to say its going to destroy our country at all i am a republican. I am saying if the supreme court go's republican alot of laws and court cases will be challenged. The supreme court has been democratic for over a decade. I guarentee you if it goes republican that youw ill see court cases like rode (sp?) vs wade go challenged and most possibly overturned

[Kristina]

Ok, this really should go back on topic but I just need to clear up some things beforehand because there's some misinformation floating around here.

1. Supreme Court Justices are neither Democratic or Republican. Those are political parties and judges are supposed to be non-partisan. Of course, they do lean certain way in ideologies. Which brings me to...

2. Besides the fact that President's don't pick someone from their party because of the aforementioned fact, they don't necessarily pick someone with their own ideology. There are 7 Republican-President appointed Justices: Rehnquist (Nixon), Stevens (Ford), O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy (Reagan), and Souter and Thomas (Bush Sr.). There are 2 Democrat-President appointed Justices: Ginsberg and Breyer. However there's hardly ever been a vote that's been 7-2 favoring conservatives. Why in the world does this happen? Well, a lot has to do with the fact that the Senate has to confirm the nominees so justices aren't straight party line with the President who nominated them. So having a shift in Presidency won't dramatically affect the Supreme Court depending on who's in control of the Senate.

3. Where one would get the notion that we have a Democratic (or even liberal) Supreme Court is a little puzzling to me. This Supreme Court article along with many other articles about court rulings all generally say that Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are typically conservative leaning, Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer are typically liberally leaning and O'Connor's a swing voter that based on history, usually leans right.

Sorry for the government lesson. I DO believe this election is important, but less so for the Supreme Court element.

[Adam Y.]

The difficulty of making this an actual amendment, coupled with overwhelming opposition (myself being one), didn't stop them.

Actually it probably be possible to get the 2/3's of the states. It would probably die in Congress though.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Actually it probably be possible to get the 2/3's of the states. It would probably die in Congress though.

Everyone (since I've seen this mistake repeatedly, and I'm nitpicky):
Please check the constitution or your history books. It's requires ratification by 3/4's of the states to pass a constitutional amendment, not 2/3's. The 2/3's that you're thinking of is generally the first step of passing a constitutional amendment; the percentage of each house of the federal legislature needed to pass the proposed amendment. Although, there's another 2/3's that you could be thinking of which is the other possible first step in passing a constitutional amendment; the 2/3's of state legislatures calling a Constitutional Convention and passing a proposed constitutional amendment. In any case, the ratification by 3/4's of the states is necessary to pass a constitutional amendment.