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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (37979)	9/19/2000 12:46:56 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

That is a recipe for despotism, to have laws be changed at the whim of individual judges, without requiring the sort of broad review that an actual process of amendment would provide. Unless there are limits inherent in the process of interpretation and application, we may as well dispense with legislatures and let judges promulgate law from the bench.........

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (37979)	9/19/2000 2:22:58 PM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't think I twisted anything. I also don't accept that if the courts are changing the constitution "every day" that they are right in doing so and thus that it means anything other than that they are out of control. If constant change is good for a social contract then is it good for private contracts? If so, who should decide what changes to make? If the social contract is meant to be constantly changing Why did the drafters and those who ratified the constitution bother putting into it language concerning how it is to be amended? If your vision of the constitution is that it should be constantly amended why don't you a) make that change in accordance with the process specified in our constitution or b) go somewhere else where you can have your constitution as opposed to having ours?