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: Solon who wrote (53260)	7/18/2002 11:28:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is certainly factual. A ruling by the Supreme Law that something is unconstitutional means just that. It may not be unconstitutional tomorrow; but it is today. There is no essential and absolutist meaning to the Constitution. That is why it is called a living document. It is legally interpreted by the men and women, so authorized, to meet their obligations to a dynamic and changing society. I disagree with the "living document" theory of the constitution. I think when the need is great enough to require a change in the constitution it should be amended. I also think the words of the constitution have meaning separate from how they are interpreted and enforced. I think it is meaningful to talk about a supreme court decision being wrong. If the constitution is whatever the court says it is then they can't be wrong because their interpretations of the constitution would be correct by definition. And if the court comes to believe that the constitution means whatever it says, and people come to accept that idea, then we have given up the idea of the rule of law, and submitted ourselves to the mercy of our 9 robed masters. so the opinions that count most are the ones which determine the rules and regulations which you will be forced to live under. Of course the court can impose its vision of the constitution and force people to live under it, but it can be wrong, and even unconstitutional, in the sense of being against what the constitution actually says. In theory the court could say that requiring supreme court members to pay taxes of any kind is unconstitutional or that the constitution requires burnt offerings be made three times a day to the god of justice. Such decisions would be nonsense and they would not be supported by the constitution. They wouldn't be constitutional just because the court says they would, they would be an example of the court acting outside of the constitution. Tim