> Nick wrote: > Well, the law for the most part is public opinion, the only fundamental > truths, i.e. rights, are that all men are created equally, and they have the > unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. >
For me this get to core rights. Should Congress and the President be able to suspend core rights? The nationalist wing of the Republican party is saying, yes, that should be the case. For example, if a judge were to overturn a law that, say, banned gay marriage on the basis that it suspended somebody's core rights, is this making law? Or is it interpreting it? The basic question is, is it possible for the executive branch and legislative branch to create a law that revokes the rights of a minority? In this case, absolutely! That's why it's the responsibility of the judiciary to decide if this law suspends the core rights of individuals. Should this judge make a mistake there's an appeals process. Federalists believe that once the State Court has ruled, that law should stand. Nationalists believe that if the State's decision isn't what they'd choose then it should be overruled either by federal courts or a distant legislature. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:152967 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
