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 : View from the Center and Left
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (14437)3/10/2006 10:54:22 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) of 542536
 
Reductio ad absurdum should have been the theme of the article.

Another attempt to find fault with the decision by a non lawyer who doesn't realize the separation of powers implications of not upholding Congressional power in an area in which the Constitution specifically provides for such power.

This isn't an issue that can be Googled for instant wisdom. Thinking about these things requires training in law, history, policy, etc. The article borders on the specious.

The McCullough v. Maryland case is one of the first bricks on which our system was built; reversing it is unthinkable. Utter chaos would result in any number of fields starting with taxation, followed by impingement of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and so on. And this is precisely why a liberal like Ginsburg went along with the decision and why certiorari was accepted. There is an important separation of powers issue lurking in the background which needed to be affirmed on an unanimous basis. You see, this at the essence was not a case solely about DADT or infringement on free speech but about how our government is structured on a Constitutional basis.

Railing against "bigotry" was not the issue; it was so far down the ladder of importance as to be almost invisible.

The court did not go into these matters because good decisions deal only with what is before them, but I absolutely, positively guarantee you that separation of powers was in the forefront of the justices's thinking when they agreed to go unanimous on it. No way were they going to put a chink in M v.M because they know full well that a chink becomes larger as time progresses.

A silly article, really.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News