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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (37936)	5/26/2007 3:24:00 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543172

Dale; So a 51% local majority in Alabama, for example, should be able to dictate how everyone in the state lives, with no recourse to federal rights for all citizens? Great example. The Federal Governments role must be to "protect" our Rights - NOT dictate our rights. In Oregon for instance where they passed the "Right to Die with Dignity" law - not once but three times I think it was - the Federal government tried to come in and tell the Oregon they couldn't do this. Is that an applicable role of the Federal government? I do not think it is. Thankfully the Supreme Court did not agree. Teri Shivo is another example. Do you want the federal government stepping in to make decision for you? I don't. Granted, I have a broad definition of Rights. I believe and would argue that the rights as envisioned by the founders of our Bill of Rights was not to narrow the Rights which we have but to define the rights as they understood them at that time. Obviously they couldn't grant rights on things of the future that they had no possible way of knowing - but would have if they could have seen into the future. ........For instance; if they could have understood "stem cells", would they have placed restrictions on them? I hardly think so - it is inconsistent with all they thought. Steve