| Author |
Message |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
rewboss wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts. A
deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
almost seem to contradict each other.
|
After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton (in front of the US Senate and with Chief Justice Rehquist
presiding in his G&S[1] robe), each Senator was called upon to
vote. The only choices given were "guilty" and "not guilty." Arlen
Spector of Pennsylvania (probably the most liberal Republican in the
Senate, and a longtime prosecutor) insisted on voting "not proven,"
which wasn't an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
expulsion from office. To convict required a 2/3 majority, and the
vote wasn't close to that.
[1] That's right -- Gilbert and Sullivan. He took the design from
a costume in a performance of "Trial by Jury."
--
Bob Lieblich
Unimpeachable source
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:56 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | For what it's worth, I had never heard of "stridden" before this thread.
|
David McMurray:
| Quote: | Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
|
Perhaps not.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Truth speak from any chair."
msb@vex.net -- Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:30 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Bob Lieblich writes:
| Quote: | After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton ... each Senator was called upon to vote. ... Arlen Spector
of Pennsylvania ... insisted on voting "not proven," which wasn't
an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
expulsion from office. ...
|
Assuming that "not proven" had been a permitted option, wouldn't it
have been sensible in the event that it was not proven whether Clinton's
actions merited expulsion from office or not?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
msb@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:35 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob Lieblich writes:
After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton ... each Senator was called upon to vote. ... Arlen Spector
of Pennsylvania ... insisted on voting "not proven," which wasn't
an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
expulsion from office. ...
Assuming that "not proven" had been a permitted option, wouldn't it
have been sensible in the event that it was not proven whether Clinton's
actions merited expulsion from office or not?
|
Impeachment is a different animal, and Spector was deliberately
muddying the waters. My view is that the Senators knew damned well
what he had done and weren't willing to throw him out for it -- even
though they could have done so if they had wanted to. In criminal
law the elements of a given offense are well established by statute
or court decision, and the function of the jury is to decide
whether, in a given case, the evidence proves such elements beyond a
reasonable doubt. An element of mayhem (called "maiming" in some
American jurisdictions) is physical injury to the victim. No
physical injury, no conviction. Indeed, if no physical injury is
proved by the prosecution, the judge will enter a judgment of
acquittal without even sending the case to the jury.
But in impeachment there are no such standards. So the Senate isn't
really congruent to a jury in the sense that it decides whether the
elements of the offense were proved. If the offense was lying under
oath, there's no real question that Clinton did so. But the problem
is that he wasn't impeached for "lying under oath" per se. He was
impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is what the
Constitution says will get someone thrown out of office. No one but
the individual Senators could decide whether what Clinton did was
"high crimes and misdemeanors." The CJ never ruled on that, because
there's no constitutional provision, statute, or case law to furnish
guidance.
The House managers, IMO, proved what they set out to prove. Enough
of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
Clinton's cap.
--
Bob Lieblich
Those were NOT the good old days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40CA5DD6.341FAA67@Verizon.net...
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
Bob Lieblich writes:
After the presentation of evidence in the impeachment trial of Bill
Clinton ... each Senator was called upon to vote. ... Arlen Spector
of Pennsylvania ... insisted on voting "not proven," which wasn't
an option. He was counted in the "not guilty" column.
The funny thing was that "not proven" made no sense in the Clinton
trial. The real issue was political -- not whether he had done what
he was accused of (it was clear he had) but whether it merited
expulsion from office. ...
Assuming that "not proven" had been a permitted option, wouldn't it
have been sensible in the event that it was not proven whether Clinton's
actions merited expulsion from office or not?
Impeachment is a different animal, and Spector was deliberately
muddying the waters. My view is that the Senators knew damned well
what he had done and weren't willing to throw him out for it -- even
though they could have done so if they had wanted to. In criminal
law the elements of a given offense are well established by statute
or court decision, and the function of the jury is to decide
whether, in a given case, the evidence proves such elements beyond a
reasonable doubt. An element of mayhem (called "maiming" in some
American jurisdictions) is physical injury to the victim. No
physical injury, no conviction. Indeed, if no physical injury is
proved by the prosecution, the judge will enter a judgment of
acquittal without even sending the case to the jury.
But in impeachment there are no such standards. So the Senate isn't
really congruent to a jury in the sense that it decides whether the
elements of the offense were proved. If the offense was lying under
oath, there's no real question that Clinton did so. But the problem
is that he wasn't impeached for "lying under oath" per se. He was
impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is what the
Constitution says will get someone thrown out of office. No one but
the individual Senators could decide whether what Clinton did was
"high crimes and misdemeanors." The CJ never ruled on that, because
there's no constitutional provision, statute, or case law to furnish
guidance.
The House managers, IMO, proved what they set out to prove. Enough
of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
Clinton's cap.
--
Bob Lieblich
Those were NOT the good old days
|
It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
Constitutional Court.
I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:08 pm
Post subject: Not proven verdict |
|
|
rewboss |
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
in <news:2itnmgFqos25U1@uni-berlin.de>
<snip>
| Quote: | There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict
precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of
"innocent until proven guilty". Although "not proven" is, legally, an
acquittal and should be treated no differently to a "not guilty" verdict, in
practice a cloud of suspicion remains in most people's minds. It is also
often interpreted as a slap in the face for the injured party; it suggests
to them that the court knows the defendant is guilty, but decided to let him
off all the same. (George Robertson once tabled a proposal to abolish the
"not proven" verdict for exactly this reason.)
Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts.
|
In Italy we had three possible verdicts as well, but that was in the
past. A few years ago we abolished the "not proven" verdict [it was
called something like "acquittal based upon insufficient proof"] for
more or less the same reasons they want to abolish it in Scotland
now.
| Quote: | A deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
almost seem to contradict each other.
In the case of the Lockerbie trial -- the trial of the men accused of
involvement in the bombing which brought down PanAm flight 103 -- which was
held under Scottish law, counsel for the defence was hoping for a "not
proven" verdict. In the event, one defendant was found guilty and the other
not guilty -- a not proven verdict was not given in either case.
|
..
X'Posted to: alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
FUP2: [Follow-up to: / Risposte a:] uk.legal.moderated
--
Enrico C
Do Something Amazing Today
Save a Life, Give Blood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:13 pm
Post subject: Not proven verdict |
|
|
rewboss |
alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
in <news:2itnmgFqos25U1@uni-berlin.de>
<snip>
| Quote: | There have been campaigns to abolish the Scottish "not proven" verdict
precisely because it seems to run counter to the whole principle of
"innocent until proven guilty". Although "not proven" is, legally, an
acquittal and should be treated no differently to a "not guilty" verdict, in
practice a cloud of suspicion remains in most people's minds. It is also
often interpreted as a slap in the face for the injured party; it suggests
to them that the court knows the defendant is guilty, but decided to let him
off all the same. (George Robertson once tabled a proposal to abolish the
"not proven" verdict for exactly this reason.)
Scottish law is unusual, if not unique, in having three possible verdicts.
|
In Italy we had three possible verdicts as well, but that was in the
past. A few years ago we abolished the "not proven" verdict [it was
called something like "acquittal based upon insufficient proof"] for
more or less the same reasons they want to abolish it in Scotland
now.
| Quote: | A deft piece of Googling will bring up many articles on this subject, although
many people seem rather confused by the whole thing and some of the articles
almost seem to contradict each other.
In the case of the Lockerbie trial -- the trial of the men accused of
involvement in the bombing which brought down PanAm flight 103 -- which was
held under Scottish law, counsel for the defence was hoping for a "not
proven" verdict. In the event, one defendant was found guilty and the other
not guilty -- a not proven verdict was not given in either case.
|
I think this is an interisting topic for uk.legal.moderated, so I set
a Followup-to to that group, in other words replies to this post will
go there.
If you don't want that, you can change it in the list of Newsgroups
when sending a message, of course :)
X'Posted to: alt.usage.english,alt.english.usage,uk.culture.language.english
FUP2: [Follow-up to: / Risposte a:] uk.legal.moderated
--
Enrico C
Do Something Amazing Today
Save a Life, Give Blood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
Constitutional Court.
I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
|
This all assumes that there's really some difference between "legal" and
"political" (I'm not sure whether there is or not). Many people seem to
regard the Supreme Court decision regarding the Florida ballot disaster in
2000 as a "political" decision, and of course it wasn't reviewable.
There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called
"critical legal studies", the basic premise of which is that all law is
actually just politics.
One argument in favor of the current system is that it strikes the best
balance between the three branches of government. The check against
abusive actions by the legislature against the executive is the ballot
box. Courts are, arguably, much more dangerous because they're so
shielded from democratic review. I seem to remember some discussions
with you in the past where I thought you had an excessively-sanguine view
of the courts, which is a peculiar characteristic of American liberals
whose view of the courts was shaped during the Warren Court era
[NTTAWWT].
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:22 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2j0kuiFrt71qU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[...]
| Quote: | There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called
"critical legal studies", the basic premise of which is that all law is
actually just politics.
|
Just as a similar standpoint takes the basic premise that _everything_
is politics. Well, if somebody wants it that way, it's hard to
disagree; but that way madness lies.
| Quote: | One argument in favor of the current system is that it strikes the best
balance between the three branches of government. The check against
abusive actions by the legislature against the executive is the ballot
box. Courts are, arguably, much more dangerous because they're so
shielded from democratic review. I seem to remember some discussions
with you in the past where I thought you had an excessively-sanguine view
of the courts, which is a peculiar characteristic of American liberals
whose view of the courts was shaped during the Warren Court era
[NTTAWWT].
|
Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they
were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court
here, but the various Justices don't seem to hesitate to act in that
role. A regular victim is, ironically, the Home Office, which is
responsible for public order, prisons, etc.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Adrian Bailey wrote:
| Quote: | "David Picton" <djpicton@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:2ad9e934.0406090852.72bc062@posting.google.com...
According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride is
definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception is the
OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past participle. What
interests me is the fact that the colloquial form now seems to be
taking over.
I did a web search for "has|have|had strode" vs "has|have|had
stridden". For a worldwide search there were 799 hits for strode vs.
516 for stridden. The dominance of 'strode' is even greater in the
UK: 174 hits for strode, only 28 for stridden!
A lot of the striding in Britain is done in areas where it's common to use
the preterite in place of the past participle for all verbs, ie. Scotland
and the far north of England.
The question which I want to ask is: which form sounds right to your
'ear'?
It difficult to say with such a relatively rare verb. Both sound okay, I
think, though "stridden" makes me think of "striven".
|
These rare verbs do cause problems even with those of us who kid
ourselves that we 'know'. I recently saw 'stave' and thought how odd it
looked, as I would normally only see the past tense 'stove'. And what is
the past participle: stoven or stove?
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Bannister
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:09 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
Daniel James wrote:
| Quote: | In article news:<2ad9e934.0406090852.72bc062@posting.google.com>,
David Picton wrote:
According to most dictionaries, the past participle of stride
is definitely stridden: I strode, I had stridden. An exception
is the OED which also lists strode as a 'colloquial' past
participle.
The question is complicated by the existence of "strided" - which
my dictionary doesn't even mention. "Strided" is properly a past
tense - a weak alternative to "strode" - but is also (mis)used as a
past participle.
|
I'm sure I have also come across 'strid', but I can't remember whether
that was a UK dialect or not.
--
Rob Bannister |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:56 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:55:26 +0200 "rewboss"
<rewboss@rewboss.com> posted:
| Quote: | "Graeme Thomas" <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ZYNNBBAEuNyAFw4q@graemet.demon.co.uk...
In article <2irvj0Fpnpd5U1@uni-berlin.de>, rewboss <rewboss@rewboss.com
writes
Under Scottish law, there is a verdict of "not proven". This is given
when
there is not enough evidence for a "guilty" verdict, but the court is
pretty
damn sure the defendant is guilty. No sentence is passed, but the verdict
remains as a blemish on one's character.
Not so. Originally Scottish courts only had the verdicts "guilty" and
"not proven". Since the task of the prosecution is to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" seems a reasonable summary of
theopinion that the prosecution has failed to do so.
Why "not so"? I said nothing about what Scottish law *originally* said, I
referred to what Scottish law is *now*. And Scottish law *now* has three
verdicts available to the courts: guilty, not proven and not guilty.
I'm not sure what the current situation is. I was once told the
following story: a jury believed that the case before them had been
brought for political reasons, and wanted to make a stronger statement
than "not proven", so they found the defendant "not guilty". I believe
that the jury now can find defendants either "not guilty" or "not
proven", but in both cases the defendant leaves the court without a
stain on his character.
Legally, yes, but not in practice because it implies the defendant was
unable to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
|
Wouldn't it be enough to prove his innocense by a preponderance of the
evidence? If he could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, why did
the prosecutor even bring the charge?
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:25 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:00:04 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
| Quote: | "Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:40CA5DD6.341FAA67@Verizon.net...
... Enough
of the Senate shrugged it off to enable Clinton to escape conviction
and loss of office. Probably the right result, but no feather in
Clinton's cap.
|
There was no feather in the Republicans' caps either.
| Quote: | --
Bob Lieblich
It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the House
|
Absolutely.
And one reason that Clinton was not convicted is that the polls always
showed that the voters didn't want it. They were happy enough with
the way he was running the government, or they didn't think the whole
investigation into his sex life was seemly**,
**In the past, neither the press nor, I think, other politicians
talked about such things. Not counting Gary Hart who was asked a
couple questions and then he dared them. (I'm sure there are other
exceptions too.)
| Quote: | could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" and
use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is because
there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This could
be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through the
court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
Constitutional Court.
|
He was actually out of office for a while and then back in??? Or he
stayed in office pending appeal??
| Quote: | I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment and
removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that hell
will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move to
make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
|
When Andrew Johnson was impeached, I think it was 6 Republicans who
voted to acquit. And I vaguely remember that every vote was needed.
He won only by one vote, I vaguely think. I heard on some history
program that none of the 6 ever got anywhere in politics again,
because the radical Republicans treated them as enemies.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:39 am
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:jqonc09tnnn3o1vide9k7fe26lm0q8aar9@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Sat, 12 Jun 2004 02:00:04 -0500 "Raymond S.
Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> posted:
|
[...]
| Quote: | It seems to me that in the United States, impeachment and removal from
office is essentially a political process: That is, in principle, the
House
Absolutely.
And one reason that Clinton was not convicted is that the polls always
showed that the voters didn't want it. They were happy enough with
the way he was running the government, or they didn't think the whole
investigation into his sex life was seemly**,
**In the past, neither the press nor, I think, other politicians
talked about such things. Not counting Gary Hart who was asked a
couple questions and then he dared them. (I'm sure there are other
exceptions too.)
could declare picking one's nose to be a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"
and
use that definition to impeach the person under investigation, and the
Senate could agree and thus remove the person from office. This is
because
there is no review of the decision by any higher court.
That's regrettable, in my opinion, since I think impeachment and removal
from office should be a legal, rather than a political process. This
could
be accomplished by having the impeachment and removal appealable through
the
court system, as is the case in South Korea, where the impeachment and
removal of President Roh Moo Hyun was recently thrown out by the
Constitutional Court.
He was actually out of office for a while and then back in??? Or he
stayed in office pending appeal??
|
He was out of office pending an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
| Quote: |
I would not be at all surprised if some American states have impeachment
and
removal systems that *are* reviewable by the courts. I also figure that
hell
will freeze over before the US Congress makes any serious effort to move
to
make their impeachment procedures reviewable by the courts.
When Andrew Johnson was impeached, I think it was 6 Republicans who
voted to acquit. And I vaguely remember that every vote was needed.
He won only by one vote, I vaguely think. I heard on some history
program that none of the 6 ever got anywhere in politics again,
because the radical Republicans treated them as enemies.
|
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Past participle of stride - strode or stridden? |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on 12 Jun 2004 15:22:25 -0700
mike_lyle_uk@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) posted:
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<2j0kuiFrt71qU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[...]
There's an influential left-wing school of legal philosophy called
"critical legal studies", the basic premise of which is that all law is
actually just politics.
Just as a similar standpoint takes the basic premise that _everything_
is politics. Well, if somebody wants it that way, it's hard to
disagree; but that way madness lies.
One argument in favor of the current system is that it strikes the best
balance between the three branches of government. The check against
abusive actions by the legislature against the executive is the ballot
box. Courts are, arguably, much more dangerous because they're so
shielded from democratic review. I seem to remember some discussions
with you in the past where I thought you had an excessively-sanguine view
of the courts, which is a peculiar characteristic of American liberals
whose view of the courts was shaped during the Warren Court era
[NTTAWWT].
Strangely, the English and Scottish courts often act as though they
were a _form_ of democratic review: there is no constitutional court
here, but the various Justices don't seem to hesitate to act in that
role.
|
That is all that is happening in the US also, although here it started
around 1803. That's when the Supreme Court asserted in Marbury vs.
Madison the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Although they
were in a better situation to claim that power since the US
Constitution does say that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the
land" iirc. The decision is portrayed now as either a landmark or a
big step. It is the first, but I don't think it's the second, since I
think it almost inevitable that if the Constitution is the supreme
law, a law that conflicts with it would have to be invalid.
And the end of the decision, quoted at
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury/ seems to make that point well.
| Quote: | A regular victim is, ironically, the Home Office, which is
responsible for public order, prisons, etc.
Mike.
|
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in