Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices 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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Road Walker who wrote (224744)	3/17/2005 7:02:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1571996

some would say that the decision to put Bush is office in 2000 was one of the worst More of a grey area than it is one of the worst of the courts decisions. And yes I do think there are grey areas in the constitution. I never said it was all black and white, merely that some of it is, and that when it is unclear this uncertainty should not be considered license to just invent something. But law is a very fluid process, subject to changes based on social opinion, anything but black and white. Legal interpretations and legal culture are fluid. That doesn't mean the law itself is very fluid. The writers of the constitution obviously couldn't foresee every application of the document. Thsy probably never thought about abortion. But current judges are bound to make decisions in these new areas, and they use the spirit of a wonderful document, the US constitution. The word and the spirit of the constitution leaves this one up to the states to do whatever they want in terms of allowing or forbiding abortion. I could reasonably see the court striking down federal anti-abortion laws. The Supremes have upheld salvery in the past, as an example. Probably correctly. Until the 13th amendment slavery was not against the constitution. Frankly, since the constitution says nothing about marriage being between a man and a women, it they stick to the literal, they should say a marriage could be between a dog and a cat from a federal perspective. If the constitution says nothing about it than from the federal perspective the law is whatever congress passes, as long as it is an area where the federal government has the power to make law. Federal law about marriage is mostly about its effect on taxes and federal benefits. Even the "Defense of Marriage act" isn't a prohibition on states having same-sex marriages, but rather a declaration that neither the feds nor other states have to recognize them. If a state decides to say that my roommate's cat is married to my parents dog, I haven't seen anything in the constitution that compels the feds to recognize this "union" or give either Winston or Penny any special benefits. But if a state was truly going to act in such a bizarre manor it wouldn't be the feds responsibility to tell the state to cut it out. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next