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 (229063)	4/15/2005 4:53:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573850

No, its inferred. Its not specifically referenced but its implied. There is no even indirect reference to a generalized right to privacy nor to a specific right to abortion. There also is nothing in the constitution that logically implies such a right. Tim, just because its not what you want, that doesn't mean the judge came to the conclusion on a whim. You might be surprised but I agree Roe vs. Wade wasn't decided on a whim. Years before the decision some ideas deviated from the constitution, that some new decisions pushed the ideas further and so on, eventually leading to Roe. Each new decision was only a modest leap from the last, not something entirely made up out of whole cloth at the time the decision was made. The idea behind this process is the so called "living constitution". "Expanding a term to mean things it didn't mean before is changing the meaning that you apply to that term." How old are you? You are acting like a petulant child. Nothing petulant or childish about it at all. You can substitute the words "expanding the right to include things that not been included previously" if you like those words better, but the basic ideas is the same, if you expand a term to include new things you are changing the meaning of that term. Its a rather simple idea. You can argue that we should change the meanings of the words and terms in the constitution, but its silly to argue that this has not in effect been done by Supreme Court rulings. The court doesn't just "invent" something out of thin air. There must be a basis in the law for it to render its opinion. Actually there is no must about it. Other than a constitutional amendment, a higher court overruling it (which can't happen to the USSC) or a constitutional crises if the other branches ignore the ruling a court can decide whatever it wants. It should be limited to what the law says but in practice there is no enforcement mechanism. But most of the time the courts don't invent things out of thin air. They base their decisions on earlier courts decisions which may themselves have been "inventions from thin air", or more likely where a matter of stretching or twisting the words of the law (including the constitution) just a bit. The problem if you keep changing something just a bit, again and again, you can wind up with something very different then the original. " I also wouldn't like ruling that would support my ideas but that aren't in the constitution. I can think of a number of court decisions where the result was favorable to my opinion but where the decision was constitutionally questionable." I am not surprised. Your thinking seems to be very unconstitutional. Few ideas are truly unconstitutional but how they get applied in law, or in a court decision can be. I generally support individual freedom (nothing unconstitutional about that), but that doesn't mean that the states don't have the constitutional power to restrict individual freedom in any number of ways. They might make some stupid and unjust laws that should be gotten rid of, but if they the states are not forbidden by the constitution from passing such a law there is no justification for the courts to overturn state laws. I'm glad that some of these laws that have been overturned by the courts are now gone but the courts usurped the role of the state legislatures in order to strike down these laws. Tim