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 (228378)	4/9/2005 2:48:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577995

new law had to be created on the state level to accommodate their interpretation of the Constitution I would only call that creating new law if the constitutional interpretation if faulty. If the constitution doesn't even mention X, and the court says "the constitution demands X" than the court is creating new law. I am not entirely sure of your point but there are some basic facts that you seem to be ignoring. First, the basis for our laws is not just the Constitution. Our laws are derived from Common Law established in the UK prior to our existence. Secondly, there are gaps in the law that must be filled as well as new situations that arise requiring new laws. Thirdly, all new laws must not be in violation of the provisions in the Constitution not matter what their origin. So then, to suggest that a law is new only when its not mentioned in the Constitution makes little sense. Most new laws are new because the situation provoking the new law is not directly covered by the Constitution. However, with every new law, judges must test the law to insure it does not violate the applicable provisions within the Constitution. A new law that does not conform with or that a parallel can not be found in the Constitution is not constitutional....period. Therefore, judges can not create laws that are unconstitutional through interpretation. If they do, they will be appealed and overturned by a higher court. In this area, the courts have broad powers that were established early in our history Early in our history they had the power to make such interpretations, but the tradition of moving strongly away from the actual words of the constitution and inventing who new ideas as constitutional law is more recent. You are wrong. The right of the courts to interpret law has been in existence since 1803. And if I get your drift, you are wrong that the courts are "inventing new ideas as constitutional law". Again........new laws must be in conformance with the applicable provisions within the Constitution. A law can not be democratic when it excludes or limits the rights of one group of people even if the majority approve it. If the rights that excluded, ignored, limited, abused, ect. have nothing to do with voting, than there is no way that it could reasonably be called undemocratic if it is voted in by either properly elected representatives, or a legal vote of the people in a direct democracy. Damn it, Tim, there are two criteria that a law must meet to be democratic. Was the law enacted democratically? Is its application democratic? Again, a law can be approved democratically but its application not democratic. I am unclear why you can not grasp this point. ted