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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (615800)	6/11/2011 5:27:31 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579850

>> And only 5 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices need to agree. At some point, the Court is going to have to put some upper bounds on this. There is no time like the present.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (615800)	6/11/2011 10:53:58 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 1579850

Me too, but it's hard to find something concrete in the Constitution that prevents that. That's thinking about it backwards. The federal government doesn't have power to do anything that is not forbidden of it. Legally it has power to do what the constitution says it can do, and no more. If the constitution is silent on an issue the feds are not granted power in that area by the constitution. Meanwhile, some liberal "constitutional scholars" can declare that this "infinite power to control people's behavior" comes from Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Which only makes slightly more sense than saying that it comes from lime jello. Which doesn't mean we can be sure that it won't stand, but if it does we've essentially moved to the classic definition of tyranny, rule without law and against custom.