Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (31366)	2/25/2004 6:43:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) of 793711

I agree with michael97123 on this I don't think it does debase the constitution. The amendment process is just about the only way to counter judges redefining things like marriage or other important traditions and traditional legal understandings without the clear relatively direct support of the constitution. Theoretically you could combat such judicial activism by picking the right judges but that isn't always a very effective method and it has to be done beforehand. Other ideas that could in theory be tried include some form of nullification (refusing to comply with and enforce the judges ruling), and impeaching judges for not following the constitution in their rulings. Either of these ideas would be far more radical then an amendment and would be much less likely to succeed. They also would create a political firestorm and possibly a constitutional crisis. Realistically they can be ruled out as alternatives (that's why I said they could be tried "in theory"), which really only leaves you with amendments or accepting the arbitrary rule of judges. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next