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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4824)	5/12/2005 9:01:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

Interesting Alabama Supreme Court Opinion: I just came across an interesting concurring opinion by Justice Parker from the Alabama Supreme Court from just a couple of days abo. Justice Parker's opinion begins as follows: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). In these words, which enshrined the principle of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that constitutional interpretation is emphatically the responsibility of the judiciary. He did not say that constitutional interpretation is exclusively the responsibility of the judiciary. Justice Parker then goes on to argue that each of the branches of government have an independent obligation to interpret the constitution, and that as a result, the court should defer to a longstanding constitutional interpretation by the legislature: [T]he Alabama Legislature has consistently followed the third interpretation for at least three decades. I believe the Legislature is within its authority to interpret § 63 in this way, and I therefore conclude that this Court should defer to that interpretation. By so deferring, we show proper respect to a coordinate branch of government. Interesting opinion that invokes, among other sources, Andrew Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United States on the ground that it was unconstitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in McCullough. Very interesting opinion. I haven't been able to locate the opinion anywhere but on Westlaw, at 2005 WL 1023157. The case name is Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Center Authority v. City of Birmingham. volokh.com

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4824)	5/12/2005 9:21:36 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

New York Times: Taxes good, market bad This New York Times article on controlling American demand for oil contains an amazingly explicit self-contradiction. First, we learn that European-style massively high gasoline taxes would be a simple and effective way to solve the (supposed) energy crisis, if only American politicians were brave enough to support them: Other industrialized countries, especially in Europe, have been much more successful than the United States and have managed to actually lower oil demand, or at least keep it in check. That comes from higher diesel use and higher taxes. In France and Germany, a gallon of gasoline sells for as much as $6, with taxes accounting for about 80 percent of that. Few politicians in America might risk ridicule or rejection by explicitly supporting higher taxes on gasoline, one of the surest ways to limit the nation's dependence on oil. Then, just a few paragraphs later, we learn that higher market prices for gasoline are hurting American consumers: According to the latest national average compiled by the Energy Department, gasoline prices at the pump averaged $2.24 a gallon, up 42 cents from last year; they are expected to touch a record $2.35 a gallon this summer. Polls show that higher gasoline prices are increasingly hurting Americans, and the president is pressing Congress to revive an energy bill that has been stalled for four years. So, according to the Times, high prices are good if they're caused by government-imposed taxes, but bad if they're caused by market forces. Got it? Me neither. ridingsun.blogspot.com