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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (28159)	2/9/2004 2:40:55 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

The government is not intruding on the management of their lives. They are asking for the State to change contractual regulations to accomodate THEM, while the majority of the population firmly opposes. They have every right to do that. Citizens have the right to petition the courts for redress, if they feel that a law or regulation is posing undue restraints on their freedom. That’s one of the most fundamental rights we enjoy. The courts are not supposed to decide such issues according to the desire of the majority of the population, but according to basic legal principles. In this case, a particular minority groups is asking for a change in a policy that they feel places an undue and unnecessary restraint on their freedom. They have the right to petition for redress, which means that they have the right to ask for the change, and the society has the duty to consider the petition. When we consider such prescriptions, what criteria would you like to see us apply? Popularity? Superstition? Or the principle that the our freedom to act as we choose should be constraint by the rights and legitimate claims of other people? Why not? What Constitutional violation would that entail, exactly? I’m not sure what Constitutional violation that would be, but I’m sure that if a law banning hamburgers was passed, it would be overturned, and pretty quickly. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see how it would be possible for the Constitution to present a complete list of permitted activities. Isn’t the onus on the government to justify any restraint it wants to impose, if a citizen petitions the courts for redress against that restraint. If they aren’t hurting you, leave ‘em alone and let ‘em do what they want to do. I can’t imagine a more fundamentally American sentiment than that.