Subject:
|
Re: Medical Marijuana
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:45:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
766 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Does your supreme court agree with that view? I hear not.
>
> Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all
> kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state
> is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization"
> is hardly surprising. Not good, but not surprising...
>
> It is sad that the Supreme Court can so completely be used this way, but
> there it is. It swings to and fro. We are now in an era of "conservatism" --
> or ramrodding all kinds of Republican bilge down the people's throats (to
> semi-mix my metaphors).
Right.
And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers
*intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter.
As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed.
As an example of this stance, I offer the view that the income tax is
"unconstitutional"... proven by the fact that a constitutional amendment was
required to get it to be so.
The problem with this stance of course (and it's a hole big enough to sail
an aircraft carrier through) is that it seems to admit that slavery was
constitutional. Which outcome I am not willing to go along with.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) Yeah, but... Doesn't the Constitution also expressly empower the judicial system to interpret the law as it applies case-by-case? That seems a fairly clear indication that the founding fathers "intended" to have the justices making the exact (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916): "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) Depends on the court we are talking about. The current court has done all kinds of crazy things with our rights. That the power of the single state is losing ground to the idea of a single nation in an era of "globalization" is hardly (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
