Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:15:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Well, you want your interpretation, and literal, too. Specter takes the
Constitution literally when he cites “except in the case of invasion or
rebellion”, but when Gonzales takes the Constitution literally, you cry foul.
|
I’m not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal
interpretation where he ought not to have?
In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right is
expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it is granted it can’t be taken
away, then the entire phrase becomes useless. In other words, either they meant
“everyone has the right”, or they were trying to fit in a completely meaningless
sentence into the Constitution.
If they meant something more complex, like “Citizens meeting requirement X will
be entitled with this right, and foreigners with requirement Y will be entitled
with the right”, they’d have said so.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Well, not considering 9-11 an invasion would be a literal interpretation, no? (...) The Constitution directs that habeas corpus can be suspended in certain circumstances; it is not an "inalienable" right, unless you believe that individuals (...) (17 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
