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 (228457)	4/10/2005 4:55:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578552

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. The common law is not directly law in the sense of statute, or constructional stipulation, it is rather a general set of ideas and presidents that can be and at times is applied by courts where the constitution doesn't cover the situation or is not clear. Something would not be unconstitutional if it was against common law experience, but not even slightly or vaguely against anything in the constitution itself. Secondly, there are gaps in the law that must be filled as well as new situations that arise requiring new laws. That is why congress and the state legislatures have the ability to create new law, and working in concert they even have the ability to modify the constitution. The right of the courts to interpret law has been in existence since 1803. Interpret the law, not invent new law and call it interpretation when it goes beyond that. Again........new laws must be in conformance with the applicable provisions within the Constitution. That is supposed to be the case but there is no gaurentee in the real world. Courts go beyond what the constitution says, as do legislatures. When the legislature does make an unconstitutional act then the courts are supposed to strike it down but sometimes they don't. Was the law enacted democratically? Is its application democratic? If it was exacted democratically and its application does not tear down or even greatly limit the democratic system it was enacted under than to the extent that the question "is its application democratic?" makes sense, the answer is yes. It doesn't mean that I would support a descriminatory law like the example you gave, but there are numerous reasons why it would be bad, we don't have to make up a new one. Tim