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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (27589)	1/13/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

A Jury Not of Peers but of Kin, Foe and Talking Head nytimes.com I'll get to your evident views on "constitutional law" in a minute. But first, this article on the "legal" proceedings currently under way. "The Senate is the virtual antithesis of what you would expect in a traditional jury trial," said Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. "This is a virtual rogues' gallery of conflicts." But he and other experts said that this was almost precisely what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. After all, they said, the stakes in a Senate trial are not criminal but professional and political, so a lesser degree of objectivity was considered acceptable. Moreover, senators were expected to approach their jury service in part as legislators, taking into account what was best for the country and what their constituents desired. Now on to the the Vaughn view of the Constitution. How about a poll on lowering taxes. What do you think the numbers on that would look like? Or silent school prayer? Or flag burning? Or the death penalty? Do you really want your senator to follow the polls? Or do you want them to follow the constitution? (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7241088) What particular view of the constitution did you have in mind there, Bill? In a way, you're right. However congress has a duty to uphold the constitution, and when that function is at odds with current polls, the constitution is supposed to win. Like in the examples of school prayer, obscenity and the earlier days of abortion, where polls were opposite the eventual policy. (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=6908163) Again, you seem quite certain of what the constitution means in this context. Yes, Bob, keep voting with your conscience. Go ahead, keep enforcing the laws. I dare you, keep upholding the constitution. You'll see what will happen in 2 years! (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=6862747) The "Bob" here apparently being the objective scholar BOB CHURCHILL, of all people. As I responded to Message 7241088 , I'm confident enough that my Senators will interpret their constitutional duty in a matter more consistent with the views expressed in the NYT article above, and in yesterday's piece that I quoted in Message 7241322, than with your particular partisan views. You're welcome to elaborate your view of what the Constitution means here, but it seems clear enough already. Clinton is the antichrist, and the Constitution says he's got to go, right?