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: Neocon who wrote (73684)	8/29/2003 5:59:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

In the 1st amendment a certain specific point is obviously there. It applies only to Congress, even if it is probably better that in effect it now applies to all branches and levels of government. Anything beyond "congress shall make no law", is a clear case of an invention by the courts. The 14th isn't quite so clear it does contain many of those "hints" and "ghosts" that I talked about before. But if "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" means that all the constitutional rights of Americans are to also be protected against state governments it makes no sense to extend that beyond specific constitutional rights directly granted to the people. If the decision instead amounts to a decision that no state shall make or enforce a law that abridges anything that a majority of SC justices think of as a natural right at any given time, they might as well have written the amendment to state that "No State shall make or enforce any law which the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't like. Which isn't to say that I don't want individual Americans protected from the state government. An idea - I know that in a practical sense this isn't needed because the as you say the court isn't about to change its decision, but if the federal government passed normal legislation that directly stated that the rights contained in the 1st 8 amendments or the constitution are protected "privileges and immunities" of the individual citizens then I think the 14th amendment's protections would kick in without any need for the current more activist interpretation that the courts use. Tim