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 (53279)	7/19/2002 1:58:24 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I think when the need is great enough to require a change in the constitution it should be amended." This is tautological. It is a gratuitous insertion into our discussion, and one on which I have no disagreement. "I also think the words of the constitution have meaning separate from how they are interpreted and enforced" Then you are mistaken. Nothing has meaning except to an interpreter. This is what I have been trying to tell you. Regardless of what you personally believe about the Constitution...its meaning is always an interpreted one. Squiggly lines mean what the reader thinks they mean. We have addressed this before. All words evolve over time to reflect a consensus of society and culture. Concepts which extend from sentences are even more problematical. "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" Yes, they could; and they might some day. This is why Jefferson insisted you have the right to bear arms...