> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of pencimen > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet > > Dan wrote: > > > I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that > > sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas. > > Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more. > What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court > that is nothing but a rubber stamp?
I think the question at hand is "what is interpreting the constitution" vs. reading one's own views into the constitution. > As far as the quote goes, I'm not sure it's applicable. No one is > proposing "cutting down" the laws, what is proposed is that they be > revised or replaced with better ones. The law that would be cut down would be the separation of powers. If justices are allowed total freedom in interpreting the constitution, then what would stop conservative Supreme Court justices from overturning Social Security as unconstitutional? Back in the '30s, much of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
