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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (32193)	9/12/2008 2:57:46 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Brumar: We clearly see the issue of judicial activism differently. Good that you see Roe v Wade as judicial activism, but for a different reason from myself. I take it you don't think Constitutional rights are binding on states. If so, what value are they? Were constitutional rights binding on states regarding segregation?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (32193)	9/12/2008 4:00:36 PM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

>> I take it you don't think Constitutional rights are binding on states.<< I'm afraid you just don't understand (or have never taken the trouble to discover) your own nation's constitutional history. I attempted to explain this to you in earlier posts. Amendment rights were not binding on states when they were incorporated into the Constitution. They should have been, and Madison argued strongly for a specific amendment which would have made them so. He was defeated in that effort. The actual status of amendment rights was unclear until 1833, when the Supreme Court ruled in explicit terms that they were not binding. It was not until the 1920s that the Supreme Court, shamed by the judicial murder of black Americans in the Southern states, began to take the powers to enforce amendment rights, starting with habeas corpus. That action was undoubtedly judicial activism, and a damned good thing too. Gradually, over the rest of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court accrued to itself powers to enforce more amendment rights. The recent 2nd amendment decision is arguably part of that process. >>Could a state establish a church if it wanted?<< Probably not today. And most states never could, since the state constitutions forbade such a thing. Various states had as part of their constitutions protections which appeared in the Federal constitution. Some more, some less. Many of the Southern states' constitutions included habeas corpus protection. It's just that the state supreme courts didn't make those protections available to black Americans. >>Thats because they worded it pretty clearly. << As well as not being an historian, you're clearly not a lawyer.