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: bentway who wrote (394754)	6/28/2008 2:03:42 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1578900

Chris, > The whole "original intent" notion is kind of whack anyway, as proved by the slavery compromise. It was a different time, and what was "intended" then might not apply now. I can see how phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" can change in meaning over time. It wasn't too long ago that death by hanging wasn't considered so, for example. I just think that whoever the justices are, each one should choose a consistent standard. Strict interpretation or loose interpretation. Exclusionary (what the government can't do) or inclusionary (what the government can do). For the dissenting opinion to claim that one of the first ten amendments does NOT limit the options available to government goes against everything the Bill of Rights stands for. Tenchusatsu