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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (52863)	7/13/2002 6:05:39 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The constitution exists independently of the supreme court. The court issues opinions about the constitution and these opinions are normally binding but they can be wrong. Saying that the court's decision is wrong, even with very harsh words and with contempt, does not amount to contempt for the idea of the rule of law, or for the US Constitution." First of all, the decision is unassailable in its proof that the pledge violates the constitutional requirement to not endorse religion. The ruling is legally and principally sound and well-considered. The dismissive arrogance expressed by State officials was clearly contemptuous of the rule of law, and of the Constitution. It has been held that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, and that therefore it reigns Supreme. The State officials did not honor that principle, nor did they honor the unassailable ruling which made it clear that the 1st Amendment prohibited government endorsement of religion--either in fact or in kind. They DID flaunt their contempt of both the law, and the Constitution; and the whole production was pathetic and ignominious.