Subject:
|
Re: Medical Marijuana
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:10:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
710 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 decisions that some of us say they shouldn't.
> 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.
But are you saying that "constitutional" applies only to that which was
penned by the original authors? That's a more stringent definition than
they themselves intended, I think. Otherwise, the legislature wouldn't be
empowered to draft amendments. I guess I just don't see the merit in
requiring a 200+ year old document (designed to be adaptable) to be relevant
to changing times if changes to that document are held to be unconstitutional.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
