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: TimF who wrote (34416)	3/25/2009 3:19:09 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "We agree a lot more than I thought we did. Out positions are pretty much the same, with only perhaps subtle shades of difference." Yep! Re: One of those "subtle shades" is that if something violates the constitution, and then is upheld by numerous lower courts, and several courts of appeals, and then eventually the USSC, I'd still call it unconstitutional, and talk about constitutional issues. And I will also call something "unconstitutional" anytime that I believe that it clearly violates the language of our constitution --- (regardless of how any particular court may have ruled... I believe that your and my practice is very similar in this regard: we reserve the right to interpret the constitution to ourselves. <g>) However, we both must accept that the U.S. Supreme Court (under our system of governance) is the FINAL ARBITER of what is constitutional, and what is not. Although we are also aware that --- in the fullness of historical times --- even the 'final arbiter' has reversed itself at various times, and I expect will always do so. :-)