SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (6733)7/4/2003 6:48:09 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7720
 
Hew's right, you know.

The problem with the Constitution is that it doesn't have a clear meaning.

And the SC changes its meaning. This has been done over and over. Separate but equal was constitutional. Oops, we changed our minds, no it isn't.

States can ban abortion. Oops, we changed our minds, no they can't.

States can regulate sodomistic behavior. Oops, we changed out minds, no they can't.

So the Constitution does not, for the SC, have a fixed meaning. It has a variable meaning, at least as applied to social issues.

Your view that the Court should be the arbiter of the Constitution would be fine if the Constitution meant one thing now and always. Some parts of it do, of course. But not all.

So the question becomes, as to the sections which do NOT have a fixed meaning, but have a variable meaning, who in a democratic republican form of government should determine at any given time what this variable meaning is -- legislators elected by the people and subject to unelection if they do not do their jobs to the satisfaction of the people, or an appointed oligarchy which has no accountabilty at all (except for the theoretical option of impeachment, but of course the Court will determine under what circumstances they can and cannot be impeached!)?



To: Lane3 who wrote (6733)7/4/2003 6:50:05 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 7720
 
Quote for the day:

"America was born of revolt, flourished on dissent, became great through experimentation." - Henry
Steele Commager



To: Lane3 who wrote (6733)7/7/2003 12:10:33 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7720
 
Pretty good article. I agree with a lot of it but probably not the part about affirmative action. I think the 14th amendment, plus existing federal civil rights laws give the court very solid ground to ban affirmative action by a government body. I don't think it would be judicial activism.

National Review recently had a cover article about Justice O'Connor. But it's no longer the current issue, and I can't find it online.

Tim