SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (6034)8/19/2001 7:39:35 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (2) of 93284
 
Personally, I think that your using a constructionist argument and calling it an agenda.
Since we're talking about highways, is that a pun? :-)

I assume that by "constructionist" you mean "strict constructionist". Correct?

It stretches the imagination that the Justices sat around and decided that they had a "political agenda" to stop contraception and abortion and manipulated their decision to that end
So they have to sit around and formally decide they have an agenda to have one? THAT stretches the imagination!

But you can also look at the amendments and reasonably conclude that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution independent of the abortion issue.
And almost 200 years of Supreme Court justices somehow missed this and these brilliant men found it? Is this your story? That also stretches the imagination. Even more.

So the constructionist might say that all arms are protected.
That has been so argued, actually.

To continue the constructionist argument there is nothing that specifically calls for any SEC regulations.
The federal gov't is specifically given power over interstate commerce.

The constuctionist position was, in effect, invalidated shortly after the Constitution was ratified.
How so?

I suppose you could also say that the Courts' decisions on Civil Rights were activism or they had an agenda
There are amendments to the Constitution that apply to this area.

If I were to interpret "legislating from the bench" I might say that the Civil Rights decisions were more legislating from the bench than the Roe v. Wade decision. In the Civil Rights decisions the Court directed remedial action
Courts commonly direct corrective action. Every day. "Make whole" in cases of fraud. Break-ups in cases of Sherman Act violations. Restraining orders.
But in those cases they are not simply making up the basis for their decisions.

The Constution says nothing about terms limits, though the Articles of Confederation did. Are term limits un-Constitutional?
The only federal term limits are on the President and Vice-President and they are in the Constitution. Where's the problem?

Line item veto?
Wasn't the line -item veto ruled unconstitutional?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News