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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (34414)3/25/2009 2:13:11 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
We agree a lot more than I thought we did. Out positions are pretty much the same, with only perhaps subtle shades of difference.

One of those "subtle shades" is that if something violates the constitution, and then is upheld by numerous lower courts, and several courts of appeals, and then eventually the USSC, I'd still call it unconstitutional, and talk about constitutional issues.

I might say (but don't think I actually have yet) talk about how there is no judicial issues. I believe I have used terms like "this probably won't run in to problems with the courts", but I'd still call it unconstitutional if "it would be but one of MANY (violations) since World War II... and entirely consistent with all the other violations that have been upheld by the Courts".
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