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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (2493)	10/14/2000 7:48:52 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

And you've failed the bar exam how many times???

To: epicure who wrote (2493)	10/14/2000 8:32:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which... True the power resides with the supreme court. That does not mean that there interpitation is always right. Frequently those with power use it to do what they want to do rather then what the law actually says. If the supreme court feels free to twist the constitution to say anything it wants to say rather then what it actually says then it becomes rule by the supreme court rather then rule under the framework of the constituion. The court is not limited by your ideas of what they should do, nor by the ideas of our founding fathers. Our country is not the same as it was in the 18th century and it would be ridiculous to think that laws created then, and unchanged, would be suitable to run it now. A court that feels itself not limited by the constitution is a dangerous thing. The consitituion anticipates that the country will change, that is why it is subject to amendment. Of course it's probably easy for you to say a great deal about this since you probably know very little of the law So your argument is attacking me for my ignorance. I am not surpised. I am not a lawyer and have never been to law school or worked for any part of the legal system. For people who fit those criteria I am fairly knowlegeable about the law, esp. the constitution (which is what I am arguing about not subparagraph 57 of section six of some obscure federal regulation or judical opinion). However even if I was ignorant it is irrelevant to this discussion. It is just an ad-hominem attack. If I was stupid and ignorant I could have stumbled on a correct position anyway. Your aim should be to attack the idea not the person who hold it. If it is wrong and I am stupid and ignorant it should be easy for you. Tim