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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3958)8/10/2000 6:01:24 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 13060
 
I agree with you.

The question, of course, is what the Constitution says. Reasonable minds can differ.

The other question is whether the constitution should be interpreted as a static document or a living document.

It's easy to say the former. But consider, then, that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment would still allow flogging, branding, etc., none of which were considered cruel or unusual in 1787. Should we allow those today?



To: TimF who wrote (3958)8/11/2000 1:12:32 PM
From: theturboe  Respond to of 13060
 
Tim,

I think the supreme court should interpet the words of the constituion and of laws, not impose visions of what they thing the constituion should say.

That is exactly what they have said in the last 4 or 5 major decisions.

I study Constitutional law as a hobby (dropped out of law school, bored). They for time were indeed interpreting
the law as they thought it meant.

Lately, they have been saying (in the majority opinions) that the Constitution SAYS WHAT IT SAYS.

Finally!


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