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 (6751)	7/9/2003 4:46:39 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

If your questions is where is it that we get those rights, well, surely that isn't your question. Actually,that would be an interesting question to discuss. Are they natural rights, and if so, from what interpretation of natural rights? It's cute to say things are "self-evident," and is a fine sounding phrase, but of course in a political or philosophical sense meaningless. Are they God-given rights, and if so does X deserve to benefit from them as she doesn't believe in God? But that actually wasn't my question. I agree with your "it isn't" the SC's job to protect those rights, whatever they are and from wherever they spring. But I stop there. I don't go on to say "but if the legislature and executive don't do it, the SC needs to step in." Because if you accept that, you accept that the SC should not only decide what the legislature should do, but the SC itself should do it. Which violates a fundamental premise of the division of powers. if the SC is going to take on legislative and executive duties along with judicial duties, then really we have changed our form of government dramatically. Which I, for one, am not willing to do.