Please explain. Because I've been through the Libertarian Party's indoctrination as well political science classes. Through the course of that and when I felt like I've wanted to understand something better, I've read the US Constitution about a dozen times. And I don't understand what you're getting at.
Perhaps more indicative of the cards I carry in my wallet. Here's an interesting read: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/more/rise.html
Delaware is where people just incorporate their companies because of more lenient tax laws there. Most of the companies don't actually operate there, they just get the incorporation done there. The credit card industry, however, has a large base in South Dakota.
They only Frivolous when it goes against BIG BUSINESS Like they mistakenly give you something that gives you cancer or Cut off your arm well That is only worth 250K and you just have to get over it mean .. . just because your life is ruined or over doesn't mean they should have to actually *pay* for their mistakes Rocket River
Since SamFisher didn't answer I'll take a shot. Yes and no. States have a right to determine how to set up their courts but in terms of the how they rule the 14th Ammendment extends the Constitutional protections to the States so that state courst cannot make rulings that would violate the US Constitution even if there own Constitutions might conflict. Not knowing the facts of these particular cases I can only guess what the courts ruled on but based on similar cases I would guess that that voucher case was struck down because of the establishment clause since vouchers could be used at religious institutions. The social services to illegal immigrants probably was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th since it states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " The strict reading of "any person" means anyone and not just citizens or legal immigrants so if it is a law to provide social services then it would violate equal protection. In regards to the death penalty case that might not have to do with the establishment clause in particular but with due process since jurors aren't allowed to bring in outside material to their deliberations that might influence those deliberations but must instead rely on only the material presented in trial.
Yes, the states can set them up however they wish. <-EDIT: The guy above me proves me wrong about that...I'd forgotten about 14th amendment protections...too obvious I guess. However, separation of powers is considered a vital part of any democracy and giving people the right to sue judges is equivalent to making them the tools of the majority...like the legislature. Which is why we already have a legislature. Someone already pointed out that judges protect the minority from the majority. They also keep the constitutions (including state constitutions meaningful by holding laws, even widely-supported laws, up to task. And it's not about the rulings. Whether or not they were good decisions or even valid is beside the point. Sure, judges are a bit political in their rulings, but that is no reason to throw out the entire system. It's like saying (and this is a horrible analogy I know) the security system my bank has isn't perfect! Therefore they should throw it out and not have one! It's massively overreacting.
