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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (30949)	12/31/2008 3:03:28 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "As I previously wrote the SCOTUS responds to public opinion." Most courts will respond to strong and sustained public opinion --- if it is strong enough, and sustained over a long enough period of time. (For the 'Supremes' though... we are probably talking about a typical time scale of generations... the institution is generally a hide-bound bunch, which is also by design.) That is why the Legislative branch is generally a much better option when it comes to changing laws so as to respond to the public's desires. And, of course, America practically invented the now-globally-popular ideas of Constitutional governance as a method of securing a nation of laws... and also the ability of our Constitution to be AMENDED by the political process, in any of several possible ways.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (30949)	12/31/2008 3:30:01 PM
From: Jim S	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

What concerns me about the citizenship controversy is the potential for really serious harm if the issue isn't settled early. IMO, it should never have even gotten to the point of a lawsuit, but since it did, using legal slight of hand (such as no standing to bring the suit) to dismiss the case without presentation of evidence only fuels the flames for conspiracy theorists. The fact that Obama et alis willing to spend the big bucks to keep his birth certificate out of public view further heightens the controversy. It begs the question, "what is he trying to hide?" Worst case, what happens if it turns out, several years from now, that he was, in fact, inelegible for the Presidency? The ramifications of that are incomprehensible. What really is dismaying to me is that there is no procedure in place to determine the constitutional eligibility of a candidate in the application process, even before serious campaigning begins, nor even in the nomination process by the major parties. So far as I know, a 20-something could become a candidate, because even age isn't part of the registration process. I just sent an email to one of my senators asking if he'd be willing to sponsor legislation that would verify constitutional eligibility in the registration process. If I get an answer that answers my question, I'll post it here.