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 (228582)	4/10/2005 5:43:54 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578239

> because in theory they can set aside any court decision and in theory they could even abolish the courts. Maybe DeLay was threatening to abolish the court.

To: TimF who wrote (228582)	4/10/2005 11:20:06 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578239

Before Congress reviews and approves an amendment, it is reviewed by lawyers to determine its constitutionality. Typically, something like the prohibition of gay marriage will be determined to be unconstitutional even before it is written. There is no such procedure. No wonder you say what you say. If you don't think lawyers review an amendment for its constitutionality before it goes before Congress, then you know very little about how the gov't works and should not be arguing the position you are \making. There is no legal limit on the changes a constitutional amendment can create. It could even abolish the United States. The only really limit is the practical limit that laws that ignore human nature and physical reality will not have their intended effect. Nonsense. You will find no statement like the one you quoted about any constitutional amendment being unconstitutional in the US. It is impossible for such a situation to occur for a properly ratified amendment. If you don't trust me check with a universities legal department or do the research yourself. You will find that I am right. There is no amendment that is unconstitutional because lawyers review them before Congress votes........the procedure you deny up above. To get an unconstitutional amendment would require a rogue Congress.......not too dissimilar to the one we have now. I don't need to check with a university. I know I am right and that you are wrong. ted