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: JDN who wrote (535715)	2/5/2004 7:14:50 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 769670

I dont think its that. I think that Pres. Bush and most people would rather NOT have to go through the ordeal of a Constitutional Amendment. They take YEARS to enact... I don't consider it to be an ordeal; there are quite a few Constitutional amendments..it may take years, but the sooner one starts the sooner it gets completed. The Constitution is a "positive" document. It's positive in the sense of responsibilities, authorities and rights [individual or states]. I think the only exception to that was Prohibition. Which ended up trashed fairly quickly. A US Constitutional amendment on marriage goes against the historic nature of the document. It infringes on the historic role of the states with regard to marriage and it would be a "denied" right; certain persons would be denied the civil contracts afforded to other persons. jttmab

To: JDN who wrote (535715)	2/5/2004 7:24:36 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 769670

I think what he was doing is using the Bully pulpit to persuade judges to use common sense. I forgot to put this in the other post... If that's what he was trying to do, IMO, he really screwed that up. Bush has made the point on several occasions about this court {MA Supreme Court] or Federal Courts not being responsive to the will of the people. Every judge in the US knows that's BS. It is not the job of the judicial to respond to the will [or whim] of the people. That is exactly why the Federal judges and every [I think every] State Supreme Court is a life time appointed position. It's a continuation of the principle of checks and balances. Elected officials may be influenced by the majority and the judicial ensures that the minority [or individual] are not oppressed by the majority. That's the way the Framers planned. And, IMO, they did a pretty fine job. jttmab