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 (303906)	9/23/2006 2:12:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571054

Again - Where does it say that in the constitution? It doesn't. Thank you. I could rest my case here but I'll also deal with your other points. Don't rest your case.......you need to consult the Federalist Papers.......they talk a great deal about the responsibilies of the three gov't branches. I'm just to lazy to do the research mainly because it won't change your opinion. And it won't change your opinion because those signing statements work for your side. But let me add.........your insistence that presidents are expected to interpret constitutionality shows your ignorance of this federal gov't.......which is not a surprise.

To: TimF who wrote (303906)	9/23/2006 2:17:12 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571054

No it isn't. Quite the opposite. Congress is supposed to be limited in what laws it can pass by the constitution, and the president is supposed to support and defend the constitution. Both require an understanding of the constitution. Let me make something clear to you.....defending the constitution and interpreting new legislation to determine whether it is constitutional are two very different tasks. The president is expected to defend the constitution. The courts are expected to do the interpreting. Any other claptrap that the right chooses to raise is just a lot of BS.