Amerika, zemlja velika

[Prospero]

Pa to su zajedničke tačke sva 4 dissenting opiniona. Robers kaže isto to:

 

Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedentshave accordingly insisted that judges “exercise the utmost care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest theliberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtlytransformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Kennedy,Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint 13 (1986) (Address at Stanford) (“One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should existin any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution.
 
In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictionson access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which isthe right petitioners actually seek here.
...
Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlementsfrom the State.
...
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every societyknown to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. Ante, at 9, 10, 23. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Courtto decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” Ante, at 19. The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

[Radoye]

Pa da onda mi caskom ukinemo taj ustavni sud, posto kurcu ne valja?

[Prospero]

Ne slažem se s pitanjem.

[Dagmar]

Pa nije, pozivaju se na svoje tumačenje 14. amandmana koji je donet 1868. Tj. zakoni (ustav) je isti, fluidno je tumačenje; cela zemlja je živela u kršenju ustavnog amandmana 150 godina a da to nije ni znala :D

 

Ma ja pričam generalno, zakoni i jesu tu da služe ljudima, i u skladu sa tim se menjaju. Mnogo bitnije stvari tu se menjaju po potrebi, tipa Nirnberški zakoni kad je takav bio trend. Brak je tu meni manje bitan, to je imo više tehničko pitanje koje se svodi na to šta ljudi hoće, hoće li monogamno, hoće li poligamno, hoće li 3 tipa dve žene ili pet žena sedam tipova, i onda kako to ispratiti regulativom za deljenje zajedničke imovine i dece. E sad da li će da se donose novi zakoni sa idejom da neće da menjaju ustav jer im je fensi da imaju isti ustav nekoliko stotina godina, ili će da svako malo menjaju ustave i zakone kao u Srbiji, meni lično nije zanimljiva tema. Jedino mislim da bi bilo fer da u zemljama gde su različite poreske stope za ljude u braku i van njega, treba i za samce da se dozvoli da stupe u brak sami sa sobom ako im je to želja zbog recimo ulaska u povoljniju porsku kategoriju.

 

Mislim jasno je da je ovo natezanje i učitavanje nekih principa u tektove pisane pre dvesta godina, kao kad religijske grupe uhvate Bibliju da iz nje gledaju šta Bog misli o igranju internet igrica npr, ali ok, hoće da se i drže ustava iz preistorije i bave rešavanjem modernog pitanja u isto vreme, onda logično moraju kreativno da tumače stare spise, pa onda i ispadnu ti bizari tipa ovo je ustvari bilo suštinski zakonito već zadnjih 150 godina, samo niko nije shvatao.

[Prospero]

Pa i meni je zanimljivo da gledam kako se stvari menjaju u tom pravnom smislu, na razmeđu zakona, tumačenja, savremenosti i poretka.

 

Najbolje je što su neki okruzi u Alabami i Misisipiju pohitali da kažu da će radije izaći iz "marriage business" u celini nego da lgbt daju dozvole za brak :D ali je neko lepo primetio da je equal marriage zapravo "fundamental right" po ovom tumačenju i da su vlasti u obavezi da izdaju te dozvole, a ne da imaju pravo da jednako uopšte ne tretiraju sklapanje braka.

[Tribun_Populi]

 

It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

 

Imperfection of common law system.

Civil law sistemi jesu kruti, ali ovakve stvari ne mogu proći bez šire demokratske legitimacije tj. barem 1 zakona u skupštini. Sad, da li je to (i kratkoročno i dugoročno) dobro ili loše, jbmliga.

[Tribun_Populi]

Mislim jasno je da je ovo natezanje i učitavanje nekih principa u tektove pisane pre dvesta godina, kao kad religijske grupe uhvate Bibliju da iz nje gledaju šta Bog misli o igranju internet igrica npr, ali ok, hoće da se i drže ustava iz preistorije i bave rešavanjem modernog pitanja u isto vreme, onda logično moraju kreativno da tumače stare spise, pa onda i ispadnu ti bizari tipa ovo je ustvari bilo suštinski zakonito već zadnjih 150 godina, samo niko nije shvatao.

 

U ovoj sferi je to stvar prestiža, zakoni generalno imaju tendenciju da konzerviraju društveni poredak i što zakon ili ustav duže traje, to je i veća potvrda da je država stabilna, funkcionalna i da taj zakon predstavlja pravni spomenik™. Ameri su ponosni na Ustav iz 1787; Francuzi na Code civil des français/Code Napoleon iz 1804. itd.

 

Suština priče leži u tome da je američki Ustav kratak, sadrži 7 članova kojima je vremenom dodato 25 amandmana, te je interpretativni i u skladu sa duhom vremena se mora dopunjavati, a poenta da u njihovom sistemu striktne podele vlasti to čini upravo Vrhovni sud, u maniru tumača ustava i tzv. negativnog zakonodavca - gde se jedan slučaj podiže na nivo presedana i važi kao opšte pravilo.

 

Toga nema i ne može biti izvan sfere angloameričkog prava, čak ni u Engleskoj kao kolevci common law sistema se takve stvari ne događaju, tamo je to rezervisano za parlament. Otud i ova "legitimaciona kriza" u izdvojenim mišljenjima NO votera.

[Prospero]

Meni je ovo zanimljivo zato što fino odzvanja u tonu tmurnog Fukujaminog teksta koji sam kačio na ovoj temi pre par meseci, a koji mi je ostao veoma, veoma upečatljiv jer govori o hipertrofiranoj ulozi sudova, interesnih grupa i "vetokratije" u oblikovanju društva:
 
 

...
The shift to a more modern administrative state was accompanied by an enormous growth in the size of government during the middle decades of the twentieth century. Overall levels of both taxes and government spending have not changed very much since the 1970s; despite the backlash against the welfare state that began with President Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, “big government” seems very difficult to dismantle. But the apparently irreversible increase in the scope of government in the twentieth century has masked a large decay in its quality. This is largely because the United States has returned in certain ways to being a “state of courts and parties,” that is, one in which the courts and the legislature have usurped many of the proper functions of the executive, making the operation of the government as a whole both incoherent and inefficient.

The story of the courts is one of the steadily increasing judicialization of functions that in other developed democracies are handled by administrative bureaucracies, leading to an explosion of costly litigation, slowness of decision-making, and highly inconsistent enforcement of laws. In the United States today, instead of being constraints on government, courts have become alternative instruments for the expansion of government.

There has been a parallel usurpation by Congress. Interest groups, having lost their ability to corrupt legislators directly through bribery, have found other means of capturing and controlling legislators. These interest groups exercise influence way out of proportion to their place in society, distort both taxes and spending, and raise overall deficit levels by their ability to manipulate the budget in their favor. They also undermine the quality of public administration through the multiple mandates they induce Congress to support.

Both phenomena -- the judicialization of administration and the spread of interest-group influence -- tend to undermine the trust that people have in government. Distrust of government then perpetuates and feeds on itself. Distrust of executive agencies leads to demands for more legal checks on administration, which reduces the quality and effectiveness of government. At the same time, demand for government services induces Congress to impose new mandates on the executive, which often prove difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Both processes lead to a reduction of bureaucratic autonomy, which in turn leads to rigid, rule-bound, uncreative, and incoherent government.

The result is a crisis of representation, in which ordinary citizens feel that their supposedly democratic government no longer truly reflects their interests and is under the control of a variety of shadowy elites. What is ironic and peculiar about this phenomenon is that this crisis of representation has occurred in large part because of reforms designed to make the system more democratic. In fact, these days there is too much law and too much democracy relative to American state capacity.
 
...

The U.S. political system has decayed over time because its traditional system of checks and balances has deepened and become increasingly rigid. In an environment of sharp political polarization, this decentralized system is less and less able to represent majority interests and gives excessive representation to the views of interest groups and activist organizations that collectively do not add up to a sovereign American people.

This is not the first time that the U.S. political system has been polarized and indecisive. In the middle decades of the nineteenth century, it could not make up its mind about the extension of slavery to the territories, and in the later decades of the century, it couldn’t decide if the country was a fundamentally agrarian society or an industrial one. The Madisonian system of checks and balances and the clientelistic, party-driven political system that emerged in the nineteenth century were adequate for governing an isolated, largely agrarian country. They could not, however, resolve the acute political crisis produced by the question of the extension of slavery, nor deal with a continental-scale economy increasingly knit together by new transportation and communications technologies.

Today, once again, the United States is trapped by its political institutions.
...
The second problem is a matter of ideas. The traditional American solution to perceived governmental dysfunction has been to try to expand democratic participation and transparency. This happened at a national level in the 1970s, for example, as reformers pushed for more open primaries, greater citizen access to the courts, and round-the-clock media coverage of Congress, even as states such as California expanded their use of ballot initiatives to get around unresponsive government. But as the political scientist Bruce Cain has pointed out, most citizens have neither the time, nor the background, nor the inclination to grapple with complex public policy issues; expanding participation has simply paved the way for well-organized groups of activists to gain more power. The obvious solution to this problem would be to roll back some of the would-be democratizing reforms, but no one dares suggest that what the country needs is a bit less participation and transparency.

The depressing bottom line is that given how self-reinforcing the country’s political malaise is, and how unlikely the prospects for constructive incremental reform are, the decay of American politics will probably continue until some external shock comes along to catalyze a true reform coalition and galvanize it into action.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Prospero

[James Marshall]

Odlično je napisan Ustav SAD, obzirom na njihove potrebe i sistem. 

 

U ovoj sferi je to stvar prestiža, zakoni generalno imaju tendenciju da konzerviraju društveni poredak i što zakon ili ustav duže traje, to je i veća potvrda da je država stabilna, funkcionalna i da taj zakon predstavlja pravni spomenik™. Ameri su ponosni na Ustav iz 1787; Francuzi na Code civil des français/Code Napoleon iz 1804. itd.

 

Suština priče leži u tome da je američki Ustav kratak, sadrži 7 članova kojima je vremenom dodato 25 amandmana, te je interpretativni i u skladu sa duhom vremena se mora dopunjavati, a poenta da u njihovom sistemu striktne podele vlasti to čini upravo Vrhovni sud, u maniru tumača ustava i tzv. negativnog zakonodavca - gde se jedan slučaj podiže na nivo presedana i važi kao opšte pravilo.

 

Toga nema i ne može biti izvan sfere angloameričkog prava, čak ni u Engleskoj kao kolevci common law sistema se takve stvari ne događaju, tamo je to rezervisano za parlament. Otud i ova "legitimaciona kriza" u izdvojenim mišljenjima NO votera.

 

I uopšten, dodao bih, što mu daje na dugovječnosti, ali isto tako stoji da su neki amandmani direktno prepravljanje nekih odredaba ustava, a neki drugi amandmani potiranje svojih prethodnika.  Kao što ti reče, dosta toga se svodi na prestiž, a plus američki (pravni) sistem je tako postavljen da je kompatibilan sa tim i takvim Ustavom - šta god nije regulisano Ustavom, ili ne valja u njemu, postoji mogućnost da se promijeni, zaobiđe, itd, preko Vrhovnog suda ili na neki drugi način. A zbog te svoje uopštenosti Ustav i dozvoljava Vrhovnom sudu da mijenja zakonodavstvo "u duhu vremena", tj.  zahvaljujući tome da su samo osnovne stvari određene Ustavom, a sve ostale zakonima, koje V. Sud može da proglašava neustavnim. . 

Edited June 27, 2015 by James Marshall

[Tribun_Populi]

^^^Pa sad, era ljudskih prava nužno donosi uvećanje opšte države, ne može i jare i pare i ne kapiram baš čemu tolika kuknjava ako se to kapira. Drugo, sistem koji je u startu dizajniran tako da se politika utvrđuje u Kongresu a administracija je samo vodi, nužno dovodi do toga da je suštinski vode najmoćnije interesne grupe (što se apostrofira kao loše) da bi se na kraju u tekstu zakucalo time da participacija građana (kao kontramera tome) i nije baš neko rešenje. Malo logički nekonzistentan članak, rekao bih. Što se pravosuđa tiče, naglašena podela vlasti u US državnom sistemu i interpretativna uloga sudstva dovodi često do sudokratije, pojave koja je nezamisliva u bilo kom drugom sistemu gde je sudstvo kao grana vlasti uvek u senci druge dve. Jednostavno, to je tako, nesavršenost sistema.

 

A o kuknjavi za većom autonomijom administracije ne bih, to recimo imamo mi i to baš u obimu koji autor priželjkuje. Pa imamo šta imamo. Hoću reći, cost-benefit analiza po meni i dalje daje prednost njihovom sistemu u odnosu na onaj (parlamentarni) u kome postoji znatna autonomija (čak i prenaglašenost) administracije u odnosu na zakonodavstvo i sudstvo.

 

 

A zbog te svoje uopštenosti Ustav i dozvoljava Vrhovnom sudu da mijenja zakonodavstvo "u duhu vremena", tj.  zahvaljujući tome da su samo osnovne stvari određene Ustavom, a sve ostale zakonima, koje V. Sud može da proglašava neustavnim. .

 

Padalo meni na pamet još kao studentu kako bi bilo da recimo mi imamo takav sistem, gde najviši sud u državi ima interpretativnu ulogu u pogledu ustava i kreativnu ulogu u stvaranju pravnih normi. I onda sam porastao i počeo da proučavam sudsku praksu i praksu funkcionisanja države, pa zaključio: neka hvala. :) Zato i stavih ogradu u postu gore, to je mač sa dve oštrice, a i činjenica je da je upitno sa fundamentalnog aspekta političkog uređenja države da li je ili nije legalno, pošto legitimno sigurno nije, da nekoliko ljudi odlučuje o pitanju za koje postoji, ako ništa drugo, kontroverza u javnosti.

 

Recimo da mi to malo više naginje platonovskom poimanju države, da u znatnoj meri negira demokratiju i da su sudije u svojim izdvojenim mišljenjima potpuno u pravu.

[Weenie Pooh]

Meni je ovo zanimljivo zato što fino odzvanja u tonu tmurnog Fukujaminog teksta koji sam kačio na ovoj temi pre par meseci, a koji mi je ostao veoma, veoma upečatljiv jer govori o hipertrofiranoj ulozi sudova, interesnih grupa i "vetokratije" u oblikovanju društva:

 

There has been a parallel usurpation by Congress. Interest groups, having lost their ability to corrupt legislators directly through bribery, have found other means of capturing and controlling legislators. These interest groups exercise influence way out of proportion to their place in society, distort both taxes and spending, and raise overall deficit levels by their ability to manipulate the budget in their favor. They also undermine the quality of public administration through the multiple mandates they induce Congress to support.

 

Samo da se ne zaboravi da je Supreme Court ne tako davno (2010) smatrao sebe za savršeno vlasnog™ da besramno legalizuje tu special interest korupciju. Čudo kako Scalia tada nije zakukao da jedan "neizabrani komitet" sve "slaveći slobodarstvo" otima ljudima pravo da bi ga dao oligarhiji u vidu "slobode govora" tj. efektivno neograničenih političkih donacija - oh hibrisa, oh sudskog li puča...

 

Meni je sve ovo zanimljivo pre svega semantićki, nastavlja se presvetla tradicija borbe za (slobodno tumačenu) Slobodu u svim stvarima. Svaki dijalog se pre ili kasnije svede na dve William Wallace figure koje unisono urlaju FRRRUIIIIDAAAAHM sa potpuno suprotstavljenih stanovišta.

[Gandalf]

Svaki dijalog se pre ili kasnije svede na dve William Wallace figure koje unisono urlaju FRRRUIIIIDAAAAHM sa potpuno suprotstavljenih stanovišta.

U ovom slucaju, sloboda govora i misljenja postaje predmet spora - u kojoj meri ce religiozni ljudi, pre svega hriscani koji smatraju gej brakove satanskim cinom, biti prisiljavani da ispravno misle i delaju. Edited June 27, 2015 by Gandalf

[Weenie Pooh]

Daj, nemojmo se zajebavati - njihova sloboda veroispovesti nije apsolutno ničim ugrožena. Ugrožena im je samo "sloboda" da selektivno nameću drugima određene propise iz sopstvenog tumačenja zakonski irelevantne knjige napisane početkom nove ere, koja im nikad i nije bila garantovana.

 

Presmešna im je ta nesposobnost da bilo šta argumentuju bez busanja u grudi i pozivanja na neku "slobodu". (Povremeno "pravo", ali mnogo ređe.)

[Gandalf]

Daj, nemojmo se zajebavati - njihova sloboda veroispovesti nije apsolutno ničim ugrožena. Ugrožena im je samo "sloboda" da selektivno nameću drugima određene propise iz sopstvenog tumačenja zakonski irelevantne knjige napisane početkom nove ere, koja im nikad i nije bila garantovana.

u ovom slucaju, problem nece biti nametanje bilo cega od strane verujucih.

 

prvi problem ce biti (ne)pravo verujucih da odbiju da na bilo koji nacin ucestvuju u satanskom cinu. vec je bilo slucajeva u kojima su religiozne organizacije i pojedinci tuzeni zbog odbijanja da pruze usluge za gej vencanja.

 

 

Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey, January 13, 2012 - A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

...

The United Methodist Church teaches, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, and ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.”

 

But Judge Metzger said church doctrine was irrelevant.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Gandalf

[Weenie Pooh]

Prodaja torti i cveća nije nikakvo učešće ni u kakvom "satanskom činu", a nedavnu fertutmu oko "verske slobode" da se odbije usluga pederima pratile su najave bojkota i konsekventno guvernersko posipanje pepelom, objašnjavanje kako je Indijana superprijateljski nastrojena i otvorena država za sve ljude ovog sveta, samo što nije dugu istetovirao na dupe i pink triangle na jezik. Najavili su i da će u zakon da ubudže stav o zabrani diskriminacije LGBTQITD, dakle imaće zakon koji i dozvoljava i selektivno zabranjuje diskriminaciju po verskim osnovama u isto vreme. Cirkus.