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 (2510)	10/14/2000 9:05:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

section six of some obscure federal regulation or judical opinion)" Did this mean something? Was this in reference to something? And by the way the word is "judicial." Do you always make a big issue about typos? The Court interprets the Constitution- IT decides what it is bound by- so it isn't bound by much is it? That's the way it was set up- your fight is with the framers, not with me. They gave enormous power to the Supreme Court- I didn't. What the court "feels" is irrelevant- it has the power, granted by the document you are such an expert on. What the court feels is not irrelevant because, as we both agree, it has the power. I think the framers did make a mistake in assuming that because its job is to interpret the constitution that it would stick to interpreting the actual constitution, and not make up new law by saying the constitution says whatever the justices want it to say. Further, ad hominem attacks are generally considered to be attacks that are personal to the man and have no bearing on the discussion. Your ignorance of the law and the legal system has a direct bearing on your credibility in this area. The fact that you think ignorance is irrelevant is very funny, actually. If some one who knows nothing about math says 2+2=4 his ignorance is irrelevant to the question at hand. He is still right. If he said 2+2=3 it really would not be relevant either, they would be wrong and would still be wrong if they where the world's foremost mathematical expert. If I argue "X is true and you should believe this because I am a great expert on the subject", then I am making the level of my knowledge an issue. But if I say just that "X is true", then the level of my knowledge is not directly relevant to the issue at hand. (Although it might be relevant to your decision to spend time talking about it with me, and it might be relevant to the tactics you use if you do decide to take part in debate). Since you care so much about my legal knowledge, I will again state that I am not a legal expert, but I am knowledgeable about the constitution. My knowledge about the rest of the law is not as great as my knowledge of the constitution, but is a lot greater then that of the average person (this might not be saying much though). If you wish to limit you discussion to lawyers then this is not an appropriate forum. Tim