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 (229414)	4/15/2005 9:08:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

"The idea behind this process is the so called "living constitution"." Yes......and your objection is? That a "living constitution" is effectively no constitution. We have no firm limits, just a judical branch above all, able to make up its own rules as it goes with the possible limitation that it not change the rules to quickly. Yes, there is........actually two things. The ruling has to make legal sense. A judge can't make it up, or he/she will be disbarred. When was the last time that you can remember that a federal judge was kicked out and disbared for the decision he made? Not for a conflict of interest on the decision, but rather just because it was a bad decision. They did not usurp the role of the state legislatures. Rather, they were 'checking' the state legislatures........which is the way its supposed to work in the checks and balances system. If the states violated the constitution and the courts struck down the laws than they would be "checking". I am talking about cases where they did not so they are usurping. Tim