--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
First, thank you to Dan for explaining my point with a "quote" from one of my personal heroes.... >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? > > 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. I'd argue that it is still rather similar. The net effect of the NJSC ruling is to twist the highest law, the Constitution, so completely around itself as to be unrecognizable. If one can generate that NJSC ruling out of the law, then I'd argue that it becomes possible to generate almost any possible ruling out of the law - at which point, the law has ceased to exist as a meaningful institution, and all you are left with is the will of the Court.... JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
