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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (224579)	3/17/2005 1:13:17 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571186

Pease provide of an example where the USSC went against the constitution. Since the USSC interprets how policy applies to the constitution, I think that's impossible.

To: tejek who wrote (224579)	3/17/2005 1:57:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571186

"Separate but equal" isn't mentioned in the constitution. It does provide for equal protection of the law. In this case you have equal treatment under the law. The law in this area treats each individual the same (unlike the classic "separate but equal cases", where arguably people where treated differently by the law). Now it could be argued that sometimes treating everyone the same is unfair. If the government controlled food distribution, found the average amount that people need and gave everyone that average amount, children and small inactive women would have extra food while NFL defensive linemen growing through two a day practices in training camp would be underfed. Another possible example is summed up in a famous quote - "The law, in all its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." - Anatole France Treating everyone the same may not fit their needs very well. It may even be considered unfair, or otherwise a problem, but it isn't a violation of the principle of equal protection of the law. Please provide of an example where the USSC went against the constitution. Roe vs. Wade is the most famous, but there are others with less notoriety. ...However, the American Constitution defines the American democracy. Therefore, if you violate the Constitution, you are violating the democracy. The constitution is the basic law for our country, but democracy does not require a written constitution, and a written constitution does not mean that you automatically have a democracy. So what? That's not what I said. I didn't claim it was what you said, but it is true, and its truth is an effective refutation of your argument that "unconstitutional" equals "undemocratic". Tim