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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (445536)	8/20/2003 1:35:42 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I am more or less on the strict construction side, but the loose construction side of the debate is not without arguments, and it is wrong to call those like Lawrence Tribe, who is the premier liberal theorist on Constitutional law, a traitor to the Constitution, much less the nation itself. Wrong in and of itself. The Constitution is a very old piece of law. Much has changed in the material and social circumstances of the country since it was drafted. Novel issues come up, and matters which would not have been contemplated at the Founding become thinkable. It is inevitable that even strict constructionists make rulings that the Founders would never have anticipated, even though trying to make the decision consistent with the meaning of the text. The difference between conservative and liberal jurisprudence, as far as that goes, is where to draw the line. I think that one should stay as close to the text as is possible, liberals think that there is no way to adapt the Constitution to current circumstances without allowing greater latitutde in interpretation. Since most of us would like to avoid a Constitutional Convention every 20 or 50 years to make sure everything is updated, there is some merit to confining the fight to the courts.........

To: DMaA who wrote (445536)	8/20/2003 1:37:29 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"....liberals who relentlessly distort the meaning and intent..." I don't find that even close to what neo is arguing. From your statement, I could agree that "liberals who" do what you suggest are despicable. A conservative, independent, or elephant would also be despicable for doing such a thing. Is it your point that ALL liberal minded people are despicable traitors? That does seem like a pretty wide net to cast and that type of statement might be what neo is arguing against.

To: DMaA who wrote (445536)	8/20/2003 1:40:02 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 769670

Those that say that some liberals "relentlessly distort the meaning and intent of the Constitution beyond recognition," and, on that basis, call them "traitors," might be better served by presenting logical, rational and well-thought out bases for their opinions and spending less time attaching labels to those that see things differently. Many of those referred to as "traitors" have demonstrated their love of this country by their military service and physical sacrifice, while many who call them "traitors" have demonstrated their love of this country by moving their lips. If this country or its freedoms were truly challenged, do you really believe that those who are so quickly labeled "traitors" wouldn't be willing to fight and die for America and freedom?