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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (162888)	3/4/2003 11:25:17 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574004

but wouldn't it make sense that certain laws and philosophies that made sense in the 18th century might not do so in the 21st? Absolutely, you have to change with the times, and I have no quarrel with that. What I'm referring to is the fact that the change is always toward the Left. While we go through brief periods during which the courts tilt to the right (for example, when a two-term Republican president appoints several justices), over the course of our nation's history, there has been a persistent move to the Left. There are those who would argue it isn't "ALWAYS" to the Left, but that I respond that you need only compare where the Court is today versus where it was 200 years ago. I just wonder sometimes are there limits? Or do we just continue the Leftward bias into perpetuity...

To: SilentZ who wrote (162888)	3/4/2003 1:51:54 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

Zo Re...Yes. If you don't go forward, you go backwards. Granted our founding fathers knew a thing or seven about government, but wouldn't it make sense that certain laws and philosophies that made sense in the 18th century might not do so in the 21st? Which is a really good point. So why are the liberals arguing that God should be excluded based upon a 18th century document. Shouldn't they be arguing that God isn't hip enough anymore to be included, or that atheism is more powerful than God, or that Islam demands Allah over God; and that God should be excluded based upon new mores, not that the founding fathers didn't mean to include God, when they clearly did include God in the Constitution, the pledge, and money.

To: SilentZ who wrote (162888)	3/4/2003 2:33:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

Granted our founding fathers knew a thing or seven about government, but wouldn't it make sense that certain laws and philosophies that made sense in the 18th century might not do so in the 21st? To the extent that such changes require constitutional changes there is a process built in to the system that allows for amendment of the constitution. If you can ignore parts of the constitution that seem old fashioned, or declare them not active by judicial fiat, then we are no longer a nation of laws and out constitutional protections are worth very little. Tim