Where do you come up with this crap about the framers of our Constitution NEVER proposing that the 3 branches of government be equal? This is surely a fundamentalists view of the Constitution and certainly not the view of mainstream Americans. Just because the articles for the Legislative and Judicial Branches are shorter can’t be inferred that they are of less importance. Since 2000, the Executive Branch has attempted to assert its dominance over the the other branches. This is just wrong and will be one of the primary reasons that history will see GWB as one of the worst presidents ever. You have no proof, other than the rantings of your fundamentalist cabal, that the Constitution was meant to support three branches of government that are “Separate and Equal”.

If a justice says, “I am not leaving,” then Congress can pass a statute that says to states, “You shall ignore the judgment vote of removed-from-office justices.” This would empower states to follow their citizens’ consciences.

For example, most people, if informed, would accept medical marijuana. Most people, would reject torture. Most people in Florida in 2000 rejected Bush, as did most Americans. Why should the will of most people be decided by a tiny majority of a tiny group of Supreme Court justices? If 5 of 9 justices feel one way, but 4 of 9 feel another way, this informs us that THE LAW IS UNCLEAR.

When Brown v. Board of Topeka received a 9-0 ruling, from justices who were named to the court in three presidential eras, it meant that the court INTERPRETED the Constitution authoritatively. When you have 8-1 or 7-2 judgments, the interpretation of law is reasonably clear. When you have 5-4 judgments that prevail, it means that the Court is LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH, according to political affiliation. There is no specification in the Constitution that allows this. Justices are empowered to adhere to the law, not create law. This is not the justices’ constitutionally-specified purview. Where does the Constitution say, “The Supreme Court of the land’s judgements are defined to be a simple-majority holding” Nowhere. So Congress can define what constitutes a Supreme Cout ruling must be obeyed by all American states.

Similarly, the Congress can define what constitutes Executive Powers, within the terms of the Constitution. If there is a “gray area” the Constitution grants Congress the power to clarify, unless the Supreme Court overrules, but the Congress has the power to define the SP’s conditions of overrule, such as requiring unanamity or 3/4’s judgment. The Constitutional framers NEVER proposed “Separate and Equal” branches. Read the Constitution. The first Article deals with Congressional powers. It is the longest article. The Executive Article follows, and is shorter. The Jucicial Article is last, and is shortest. The framers intended the Congress to hold “Seperate and UNequal” powers, as the agency closest to the people, and most reponsive to the people’s will.

Misdeeds work best in the dark, they grow in the lack of light, it is the free press that has the job of putting light into the darkness where misdeeds grows. I guess it depends on which side you are on, misdeeds or the light. It is alarming about the warrant less wiretapping, the phone number collecting, the secret prisons, the President saying he is not accountable to the Congress or the S.C.O.U.S., that he can use torture when ever he wants to, that he can label anyone he wants to including Americans as a enemy combatants and they have no right to a hearing or legal council, that he can void the laws of the land at his choosing.

But is the alarm more that such things are a heads up to the terrorists or that they are happening in America?I guess it depends on who is more clueless that they are happening.

It’s just this. Do reporters have special rights under the constitution that other citizens don’t have?

NO. If (and I say if, because I don’t know the details of the Anderson case aside from the article) a reporter has information material to an ongoing investigation, and he is subpoenaed to turn over that information, must he turn it over?

Of course. Absent some special legislative protection (which most states have, to some degree), there is no right for journalists to refuse to answer the same court orders the rest of us must answer.

As it should be. The constitution does not respect classes of persons.

Free Press! Full disclosure!

Prosecute on!