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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (22138)	11/3/2004 4:04:13 PM
From: bull_derrick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Sun, I'd probably side with Kodiak on that one. While the Declaration is an important historical document, it was never ratified by a single state nor is it a document for governance. In the same way, we wouldn't invoke the Articles of Confederation which was the first stab at a national identity, because it doesn't apply to this Republic, a literal reading of the constitution by a judge would not include the Declaration any more than the Magna Carta, or the Code of Hammurabi, or a dictionary when one tries to spell Hammurabi.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (22138)	11/3/2004 4:06:53 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Sun, The Declaration has no more legal weight than Thomas Paine's pamphlets, Thomas Jefferson's diaries, etc. when interpreting the Constitution. The Constitution is a superseding contract, in legal terms, it is the sum and total of everything we need to look at. Besides, look how much of the Declaration was ignored in the period of, say, 1787 to 1861. No lawyer would agree with your statement about the Declaration. As I noted, the Constitution only provides protection for certain kinds of speech, other kinds (take commercial speech)is NOT protected by the Constitution. Yes, certain kinds of non-verbal speech should be protected, provided it is within the bounds of what either the founders or REASONABLE interpreters of the Constitution determine to be "free speech." If a woman should be permitted to "speak" by taking her clothes off, should she be limited to doing it in Harry's Silver Dollar Club; shouldn't she be able to do in on March 15 at the corner of Broadway and 42nd Street? Should we allow the guy next to her to masturbate, provided he doesn't soil anyone? Only if he was born without a lower jaw? What kind of circus show do you think the founding fathers and later stewards of the Republic were really looking out for? The point again, is we self-govern here. Time for tennis. Kb