O'Connor steps down (merged threads)

scaeagles · 07-01-2005, 11:08 AM

GD, the process that was left to allow the changing of the Constitution was the amendment process, not the judgement of the Supreme Court. In fact, it wasn't until 20 or so years after the Constitution was ratified that the Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbiters of what was constitutional in Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review.

What is vague about interstate commerce? What is vague about emminent domain? Do you believe that the founders intended emminent domain to be used to take property from one private entity to give to another? This court isn't simply interpretting something vague, they are changing the meaning. This is beyond dangerous.

I don't believe the Constitution to be vague in the least. Many who try to change the meaning have attempted to make it so, such as gun rights opponents trying to say that the right to keep and bear arms really doesn't mean the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, even though "the right of the people" in every other amendment refers to every person.

07-01-2005, 11:08 AM	#11
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	GD, the process that was left to allow the changing of the Constitution was the amendment process, not the judgement of the Supreme Court. In fact, it wasn't until 20 or so years after the Constitution was ratified that the Supreme Court declared themselves to be the final arbiters of what was constitutional in Marbury vs. Madison, which established judicial review. What is vague about interstate commerce? What is vague about emminent domain? Do you believe that the founders intended emminent domain to be used to take property from one private entity to give to another? This court isn't simply interpretting something vague, they are changing the meaning. This is beyond dangerous. I don't believe the Constitution to be vague in the least. Many who try to change the meaning have attempted to make it so, such as gun rights opponents trying to say that the right to keep and bear arms really doesn't mean the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, even though "the right of the people" in every other amendment refers to every person.
	Submit to Quotes