⌛ coup in Manila

If you're talking of sowing wind then you get storms and typhoons, i guess this was what Erap and the bulls** corrupt party and the huge 'buwayas' (crocodiles) behind experiencing today.They tried to do the marcos tricks,now they get back lash. Tried few times those crappy coup , impeachment so yucky ,still can't do because people get tired of it .That little woman must be far smarter than them , now getting close to 2010,she's still there .

When i heard of Erap elected as president,i was very ashamed of it ,and wished I wasn't filipino for that day.Because it just showed how this country is ruled by the masa mentality people, actors without qualifications or experience on the job can rule the country ,how scary is that.Honasan and trillanes dodgy characters with criminal records up to get legally elected as senators? Welcome the Philippines! Actors and actresses can easily jump on the political wagon as easy like a click of a finger.I wish the death penalty is back,and those mutineers can't walk out ,get elected or start again another chaos ,they should be lined each of them for the firing squad!

 

I think you did not get my point when I said; 'They are starting a movement to petition the US Supreme Court to change the provision in the law.' The phrase does not mean that they [the Californians] want the SC per se to change the law. They wanted the SC to render a legal opinion with regards to the law that; 'foreign-born people is banned from the presidency'. The idea here is, the petitioners believed that the law is no longer in stride with modern America.

W_H opined:

The Supreme Court can't change any law. They only interpret it.

Reply:

In as much as they inteprete the law, the SC can also change it. A federal law or a state law all changed by the landmark decision of the SC in the Roe vs Wade case. This is now called a 'Supreme Court Doctrine'. Can the SC change its own doctrine? Yes they can! When there is a new composition of the SC rendering a decision to supersede the old doctrine.

 

He... he... he... There is no difference! They are all corrupt! Only governments lead by angels from heaven are perfect governments. The late Winston Churchill once said; "It has been said that democracy is the worst government except all other governments that had been tried from time to time." He meant that democracy inspite of all its frailty we should not abuse it. It's the only one we got. Of course you don't like the governments of Marcos, Hitler or Mussollini. Erap was elected democratically and do you mean that Erap is the one planting the wind of divisiveness....

 

Roe v Wade is a completely different animal. The Supreme Court can interpret the right to an abortion through subtle wording in the constitution because it's not directly addressed, but this is directly addressed and simply spelled out. There is no way to interpret it any other way. The Supreme Court has no say in the matter. It is not a Surpreme Court doctrine. It's the Contitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court has no way to change it. Period. They can't render a decision about it. They can't supercede it. They can't change it. It's written in stone and can only be changed by an amendment to the constitution.

 

Okay... Let me presume that you understand the first part of my posting. Now to the second part. You wrote your opinion like this;


The Supreme Court can't change any law. They only interpret it.

You specified it as 'any law'. If I have to make a sweeping understanding it can be the constitution, federal or state law. You mean all the laws.

In my first posting when I said that; "'They are starting a movement to petition the US Supreme Court to change the provision in the law"... You made a sweeping idea of my opinion. It's not the SC that wanted change in the provision of the constitution but the Californians. Do I have to parse the words in the sentence to make you understand? In my next reply I specified to you that only the 'opinion of the court' that is sought. Not change the provision of the law because I know only congress can amend provisions in the constitution. You review my posting.

 

Right. The Supreme Court cannot change any law. They can't make laws and they can't change them. They only interpret them. They can determine that a law that has been passed is unconstitutional and therefore void, but this one thaey can't because it is in the constitutional, therefore can't be unconstitutional.
The way our system work is that the congress makes laws. The president is supposed to sign them into law, but if he doesn't do anything, they go into law automatically. If he wants, he can veto them. In that case, the congress can over-ride his veto with a three-fourths vote. If that happens, it still goes intl law. If someone challanges a law, federal, state, county or municipal, the Supreme Court can choose to review it and hear arguements from both sides. They can then determine if the law is constitutional and interpret what the law means. If it is written as plainly as the one about being born in the U.S. to be president, there isn't much leeway for them to interpret, but most laws are rather vague or, in the case of abortion rights, one must decide what the intent of the constitution's framers was and how the issue is affected by the current laws. But the law you speak of is written in the constitution, so to change it requires an amendment. Also, it is directly addressed, nothing ambiguous about it. There is no question about hoqw to interpret it. Therefore, the Supreme Court can do nothing to change it, nor can the president. Only the congress anlong with either two-thirds of the states' legislatures or conventions of two-thirds of the states. That gets the amendment to be proposed. Then, three-fourths of the states are required to approve the amendment. It's an arduous undertaking and one that would never pass, especially right now when Americans are paranoid about foreigners.

 

I think you got your idea from the fundamentals in the separation of powers clause. The president can issue edicts, executive orders or declare a state of emergency by-passing congress. Bush Jr. issued a presidential memo barring congress from questioning his staff in congress. The SC in making a law it's not that they should go in session for the purpose of making a law. The SC can make their decision into law if their decision is unprecendented. What I mean is that if their decision is not yet enacted in congress or no precedent decision. You are too literal....

 

You believe what you want to believe.

 

I think you are a hard bone! I already gave you a hint that I understand what you said. What do you want... A debate? your intellectual dissertation is already very clear to me. He... he... he...

 

Thank you, Kalag.