Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (63421)	11/18/1999 8:36:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Well, the point is that it wasn't until the 20th century that the United States Supreme Court decided to use the constitution to "oversee local cops." Before that, the only oversight was state law, which was sometimes inadequate to protect human rights. And the question is, do we want the Supreme Court to be able to oversee local cops if the states won't? I think the answer is a resounding "yes." So then, you've got to deal with the fact that the boundaries between state power, federal power, and individual rights, which are poorly defined, are sometimes going to be transgressed, and that well-meaning people are going to differ about the outcomes. BTW, I saved Roe v. Wade to disk, and was going to edit it, but it's just too long to post on SI unless I do it in successive posts. I am considering doing that, but only if you think people might find it interesting. One of the things you don't realize is that it specifically holds that states may regulate abortion after quickening. And gets into the history of abortion, and so forth. I think that anything before Roman numeral V. can be ignored, it's about standing, not the merits of the case, but everything after Roman numeral V. is well worth reading.