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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (3661)	8/26/2004 9:58:07 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

To often lately its become "lets pass/sign it", its popular (or I can trade my vote on this for support on some other issue), and the supreme court will strike it down anyway..." One of the people in this blog debate argued that it would be better if both/all sides of the political debate respected the constitution more but if your opponents are going to advance their agenda with unconstitutional laws or laws of questionable constitutionality that you had better do so as well or you cede control to them. I understand that argument but I can't really agree with the practice. What do you feel about the idea of an attorney general not arguing for a law that congress passed when it is up for revue in the courts if he and/or the president think it is unconstitutional? Tim

To: Neocon who wrote (3661)	8/27/2004 7:09:32 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

The question still is, who decides it's unconstitutional. If two of the three branches of government -- really three of four if you count both houses of Congress seprately -- pass and sign a law, those two branches, which are both governed by the same constitution that the Supreme Court is, and who both take the same oath of allegiance to the Constitution, then those two branches have decided it's constitutional. Or else they would be breaching their oaths of office in passing and signing it. The Supreme Court just grabbed that power in a basic judicial coup. It would be much more democratic to say that majority rules -- two branches outrule one branch. If indeed Congress passes and the President signs unconstitional laws, why aren't they prosecuted for violating their oaths of office? The Constitution nowhere ways which branch of government has the ultimate power to decide whether