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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6716)	7/3/2003 4:04:39 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 7720

testing 1, 2, 3

To: Lane3 who wrote (6716)	7/3/2003 6:00:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

it is still their job to undo legislative stuff that doesn't conform with the Constitution. True. But where in the Constitution is a right to sodomy granted? Try the ninth amendment. The government is supposed to do only what the Constitution says it can, not everything the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit. Ah, yes. The Ninth Amendment. What does it mean? Nobody knows. As far as I am aware, the Supreme Court in its 200+ years of jurisprudence has never once cited the 9th amendment as the basis for a decision. Never once. I haven't read the sodomy decsion, but I would bet it never mentions the 9th Amendment either, or if it mentions it, does so only in passing and as dicta. And you must also look at the Tenth Amendment, which gives the states all the powers not granted to the Federal Government and not prohibited by the Constitution. Which would presumably include the power to regulate the rules of bridge.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6716)	7/3/2003 6:15:29 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

That's silly. Why is it silly? We have three branches of government. They are supposed to be co-equal. The members of all three of them take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If three hundred Representatives all vote in favor of a bill acting under the considered belief that it is Constitutional, and fifty one Senators all vote in favor of a bill under the considered belief that it is Constitutional, and the President signs the bill acting under the considered belief that it is constitutional, that's three hundred fifty two votes for constitutionality, and two out of three branches of government contending constitutionality; yet five unelected people appointed for life can undo all of that and say, our five votes and one branch trump your three hundred fifty two votes and two branches. So much for equal branches of government.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6716)	7/3/2003 6:46:39 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7720

Acouple of interesting letters at andrewsullivan.com CONCEDING DEFEAT: You're absolutely right; many in the press have all but conceded defeat. Having spent a year (1967-68) in the Mekong Delta, and having made three other deployments to the Tonkin Gulf in the 1960's, I am appalled by suggestions that there are parallels between the two conflicts. Just for perspective: We were in Vietnam for over a decade; we have been in Iraq for less than four months. There was no clear national interest at stake in Vietnam; in Iraq we either make this thing work -- and create a chance for a peaceful and stable Middle East -- or we will have failed catastrophically. It seems that few remember that at the peak of the fighting in Vietnam, and for a sustained period of time, we were losing about 500 killed -- not killed and wounded, 500 killed -- per week. In Iraq we have lost 22 dead to hostile fire in the two months since "major combat" was declared over. And yet the hand-wringing has bedome quite frantic. If -- as seems possible -- the American people regard four months of combat operations and 200 dead as getting "bogged down," then we never had a chance to succeed in this thing, and we are going to get what we as a nation deserve to get. I do not think Mr. Bush has done anything like what needs to be done to encourage the people to show a little backbone. The trip to the carrier flight deck may come back to haunt him. __________________________ BASICALLY ALL BUNK: I would like to respond to your take on Justice Scalia's judicial temperament. Anger is a feeling many judicial conservatives feel at seeing the constitution being flushed down the toilet. Let me explain. I do not believe there are any unrecognized "constitutional rights" in the constitution. That means that the better part of 80 years of substantive due process jurisprudence is basically all bunk. Once we have accepted that there unrecognized rights, we allow the most countermajoritarian institutions in our country to find them. I would wager that if the founders were alive today they would be shocked at the fuss over the Supreme Court. Not over this issue or that, but that they have been given this level of power. Therefore, not only are all right to privacy cases going back to Griswold wrongly decided, so are other 14th Amendment substantive due process case dealing with the fundamental right to education, marriage, etc... I would argue that if a state wanted to ban marriage, it would not be unconstitutional (lets leave state constitutional law out of this exercise). Now of course such a law would be incredibly stupid, and conservatives would raise holly hell. However, since marriage is not a right clearly defined, as say is the protection against unlawful search and seizure, such a state law should not be overturned by the Supreme Court. The remedy is the next state election or constitutional amendment. Now it is true judicial conservative believe very strongly in natural law, and such a ban on marriage would come into conflict with that, so how does one reconcile the rights one has under natural law, with a constitution that cannot recognize them? Think of it this way. The constitution does not say what is right and what is wrong. It tells us who decides. Today the folks in favor of eliminating anti sodomy laws won one in the court. But who knows who will be on the court in 25 years? Or 50 or 100? You certainly would not want to see conservative activists using the court for their political ends (and no, Scalia would not do that. When he came to my law school to speak he said although he is pro life, if there were no right to privacy for abortion, and the states were free to craft their own laws, he could not see any limitations the federal courts could place on it. A conservative judicial activist on the other hand would find that the right to life in the 5th amendment covers the unborn. Of course that would not have been the founders original intent). If we are going to allow unelected judges literally make up laws as we go along, we are headed for trouble. Justice Scalia sees that, and his incredulousness is evident in his dissent. I cannot blame him. The democratic process was working. Sodomy laws were falling by the wayside, and gay marriage was picking up steam. I oppose both, but could live with it, because after all, this is a democracy where the majority gets to make the laws. The majority. Not 9 folks!