Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for February 05, 2011

  1. Comic face
    comicgos  over 13 years ago

    Try as the lunatics might - they ain’t changing the constitution!

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    PhantomPlumber  over 13 years ago

    @comicgos: Well, not more than 27 times, anyway… ;-)

     •  Reply
  3. Cat29
    x_Tech  over 13 years ago

    That Kate! Now ain’t she just the helpful one?

     •  Reply
  4. Photo  1
    thirdguy  over 13 years ago

    The last time I heard a screech like that, I had my brakes checked!

     •  Reply
  5. Andy
    Sandfan  over 13 years ago

    For those of us whose high school civics are a little rusty:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

     •  Reply
  6. Krazykatbw2
    grapfhics  over 13 years ago

    There is a 28th in discussion.

     •  Reply
  7. Croparcs070707
    rayannina  over 13 years ago

    That screeching sound, better known as “the cold hard slap of reality” …

     •  Reply
  8. What has been seen t1
    lewisbower  over 13 years ago

    I like the fact that when they pushed the on button, the writers of the Constitution made it very hard to push off.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    prrdh  over 13 years ago

    The Constitution has been nothing but a rhetorical device since Jackson’s Presidency. Since then, it has effectively been whatever the President, speaking for the ‘majority’, says it is. The two-party system has eliminated the independent judiciary by making sure judges need to join either the Jets or the Sharks to get anywhere above JP level.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    puddleglum1066  over 13 years ago

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, about 8 precedents ago: “True. That is what ‘activist’ judges are for. They just ignore what it says and do what they want…”

    I assume that by this you mean such things as rewriting the 14th amendment (the one that was supposed to free the slaves) so that it instead freed the corporations to enslave us all… (actually, it’s unfair to say corporations treat employees as slaves… slave owners made sure their property got fed).

    Of course, let’s not leave out the executive branch’s habit of rewriting laws that don’t suit them through the use of things like “signing statements” (first made public by Dubya, but enthusiastically embraced by Obummer). The Prez doesn’t like the law? He just writes up a signing statement saying “I’m not actually going to carry out this law; in fact, I’m going to do just the opposite.”

    For that matter, let’s remember the petty bureaucrats who feel free to “re-interpret” the laws when creating the regulations that enforce them. Back in the Clinton days, for instance, Congress passed a small insurance reform bill, one that said your insurance company couldn’t deny coverage just because you participated in a slightly risky recreational activity like hiking, water-skiing, skydiving, motorcycle riding, snowmobiling, etc… The law was quite explicit: no discrimination in this area. The bureaucrats at HHS then wrote the official regulations in such a way as to explicitly enshrine the insurance companies’ right to deny coverage. Oops…

    prrdh is, alas, right: the executive branch is treating the Constitution, and to an increasing extent the laws passed by Congress, the way drivers treat the speed limit, as nothing more than a suggestion.

     •  Reply
  11. Dgp 61
    DavidGBA  over 13 years ago

    Duped by overlooking due process. :D

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    SuperAndy Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Love the motion of their hair and the newspaper in the last panel

     •  Reply
  13. 69a2f960 2132 4569 a8f7 3d56dd1b2cda
    WineStar Premium Member over 13 years ago

    Glad to see someone point out that we are a nation that has both a Constitution and statutes and case law interpreting those statutes.

    However, to say judicial activism started in the 20’s & ‘30’s misses the whole 19th century of activism that started with Mayberry v. Madison.

    Most blatant judicial activism lately - the Citizens United case, which had been previous decided and settled law, then the SC requested a rehearing on points that hadn’t even been argued in the lower courts. Really? Really. That is the poster child for an activist court.

    Same with the FL federal district judge ruling the entire Health Care Act unconsitituional. A judge is charged with striking down the portions of a law that s/he finds unconsitutional, but leaving the rest intact – not issuing a blanket declaration. Use a scapel, not a sledge hammer.

    The politicization of judges is the final nail in the coffin of the Separation of Powers.

     •  Reply
  14. Junco
    junco49  over 13 years ago

    Nab:

    Would you consider the Supreme Court ruling that corporations can give unlimited funds to political organizations an example of an activist court?

    I’m waiting!

     •  Reply
  15. Turkey2
    MisngNOLA  over 13 years ago

    jcmckain, plessy v ferguson was settled law, as was brown v board of education, yet those “activist judges” saw fit to re-examine the underlying statutes and reqrite the decisions therein. What I see in the decision you quote and the ones I quoted is if any error is made, it is to err toward the side of freedoms and liberties acruing to the constituency, and away from the government.

     •  Reply
  16. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  over 13 years ago

    If stupidity had to be ratified, so many Americans would remain in limbo.

     •  Reply
  17. V  9
    freeholder1  over 13 years ago

    You all forgot FDR who tried “stacking’” the SC since there is no number limit on judges. So please don’t pretend it’s only the judiciary’s fault when the execs are the ones who manipulate the placement.

     •  Reply
  18. V  9
    freeholder1  over 13 years ago

    So you folks are suggesting Danae save up her ammo and get a judicial appointment?

     •  Reply
  19. V  9
    freeholder1  over 13 years ago

    And I compliment us all on the civility of the discussion.

     •  Reply
  20. Warthog
    wndrwrthg  over 13 years ago

    An “activist judge” is someone who rules contrary to my way of thinking.

     •  Reply
  21. Frog
    momazilla  over 13 years ago

    they are now trying to say that “anchor babies, those born here of immigrante parents, are not citizens. Just goes to show that a good education does not guarantee that you are not STUPID

     •  Reply
  22. Yellow pig small
    bmonk  over 13 years ago

    Just want to say that I love the exclamation points on Danae’s SCREECH!!

    jcmckain said, about 6 precedents ago

    However, to say judicial activism started in the 20’s & ‘30’s misses the whole 19th century of activism that started with Mayberry v. Madison.

    Another famous bit of making policy that comes to mind is when Congress passed the Indian Removal Act (1930), which Jackson signed into law. The act was challenged successfully by the Cherokee Nation in 1832 in the US Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia. Despite the Supreme Court decision, Jackson took no action to uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was quoted as saying “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”.

     •  Reply
  23. Meh
    Tucker_Storrs  over 13 years ago

    Sandfan,

    its not highschool civics because RIGHT NOW in my 7TH GRADE CIVICS CLASS were learning about the bill of rights

     •  Reply
  24. Meh
    Tucker_Storrs  over 13 years ago

    yesterday the entire comic is a pun -

    “the right to ‘bear’ arms”

     •  Reply
  25. Stewiebrian
    pouncingtiger  over 13 years ago

    Reality strikes Danae like a bolt of lightning.

     •  Reply
  26. Pc1
    TheDOCTOR  over 13 years ago

    I don’t think the amendment concrning Income Tax (a “temporary tax”) was ever ratified by the proper number of States THEREFORE People have been paying to the IRS Illegally for years.

     •  Reply
  27. Missing large
    artybee  over 13 years ago

    Sorry, Opie. It’s Marbury v. Madison, not Mayberry.

     •  Reply
  28. F35 debuts06
    michael.p.pumilia  over 13 years ago

    I would prefer the Mayberry style of life and law-upholding. Opie sure flourished in that environment.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Non Sequitur