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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (1410)	12/18/2000 12:49:01 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 6089

Tim, the NYT editorial page is nothing like the WSJ editorial page. The Times has some diversity in the op-ed columns I'm talking about the editorials not the op-ed page. And spare me the constitutional lecture. The founding fathers believed in government by the propertied class, as do modern day conservatives. So what? If there is part of the constitution you don't like I suggest you push for an amendment. If the government is free to just ignore the parts you don't like then what is to prevent it from ignoring the parts you do like, like (I would guess) the 1st amendment. Took a civil war to fix what was wrong with the strictly constructed constitutionalism the U.S. started out with, and it took another 100 years for the Supreme Court to actually take the civil war amendments to the constitution seriously. The aftermath of the civil war included amendments. So strictly following the constitution would include strictly following the amendments that you speak of. I don't have a problem with that. To the extent that they where not taken seriously (and I think you exaggerate this) then I would be against government actions which ignore these amendments just as I would be against the government ignoring the 1st or 2nd amendment. Tim