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: TimF who wrote (228146)	4/7/2005 4:34:37 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578069

Why? There are checks on the courts already built into the system. The most important check is the defined role of the court to interpret law not create law. That is already built in to the system "on paper", but it is often not the way the system actually functions today. Tim, you are not listening. In the process of interpreting law, new law is created......inadvertently. The two go together like a horse and carriage. Your definition of their role is not correct. Because the courts don't interpret the laws the way the right wants, they are looking for ways to invalidate or limit the role of the courts........you included. interpretation of the law may well lead to new laws. That is the province of the courts. No it is not. Yes, it is! Deal with it! On the contrary, the courts would deem it unconstitutional, if not undemocratic. It would be unconstitutional for a court to call an amendment unconstitutional. An amendment to the constitution is part of the constitution. It can not be unconstitutional. That's not true. If a constitutional amendment is written unconstitutionally, its unconstitutional no matter how many states approve it. There have been many laws approved by voters and/or legislators or Congress, that have been deemed unconstitutional. We have never had a constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional but its possible although unlikely. What you don't understand is that a law could be enacted democratically but may not democratic. If a law is enacted democraticly then by definition it is not undemocratic. Yes, it can be. If the city of Seattle votes into law an ordinance that discriminates against Jews, then that ordinance is undemocratic. It attempts to exclude some citizens from enjoying the same freedoms as others in the city. It doesn't matter than 85% of the Seattle residents voted for the ordinance. Its still undemocratic in nature even though it was enacted democratically. ted