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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73395)	8/27/2003 11:25:54 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The problem is that it reflects a misunderstanding of the way that the Court works. Once an interpretation has taken root, such as that pertaining to the 14th Amendment and its relation to the First Amendment, there is a very strong presumption against overturning the doctrine. Things are not nearly as "in play" as he seems to think. It makes perfectly good sense to interpret the Equal Protection Clause as ensuring the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, even if there were other possible interpretations, and on the basis of stare decesis one has to have a compelling reason to overturn settled case law. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause has to be taken in the light of the Free Exercise clause. Operating together, they guarantee that there will be no imposition against conscience of any specific religious belief, nor any but the most compelling restriction of individual religious practice. Thus, the idea that non- establishment is merely corporate is a stretch. Clearly it belongs under the aegis of Equal Protection.........