# What direction will the supreme court go?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was watching Fred Tompson's interview about the supreme court appointment to come, and this got me thinking about the future of the supreme court. 
As often as I get on landowners who lease the rights to hunt a public resource this may come as a surprise to you. With the decision on private property that the supreme court made a week or two ago I think all property owners , including farmers, should set up and take notice.

The supreme court made it's decision on economics, not the constitution. Now I see a poll says 41 percent of the nation wants a more conservative judge appointed, 30 percent want a more liberal judge appointed, and 23 percent want it to stay the way it is. If it stays the way it is a developer can take your lakeside farm land for a housing development. You can bet the county would do it because those homeowners will pay 1000 percent more per acre in taxes.

So what does everyone think? Will only the far left become obstructionists, the left one half of the democratic party, or the entire democratic party??????????

The appointment has always been the presidents, and no nominee in history has ever been denied an up or down vote. Are we all more partisan today? I think the obstructionists will filibuster , and the dominated republican congress will use the "nuclear option". Should they??? I think so. When the people of this nation voted last time they knew what the presidents duties would be, and they knew that one or two, and perhaps even three supreme court judges would be leaving the supreme court. The election wasn't simply for the man, it was for the things we all thought they would do while in office.

I for one will be calling my congressman. Not for liberal or conservative, but to support a person that bases their decision on the constitution. We either respect the constitution or we do not. The problem with the far left is they know they can not sell the liberal addenda to the American people, so through the back door they attempt to legislate from the supreme court bench. The constitution has not failed us for a couple hundred years. I for one think we should stick with it a few more years.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I, too, was surprised and saddened by the Supreme Court decision about private property rights. But as I have pointed out earlier, 7 of the 9 judges were appointed by republican presidents. Are the democrats currently in the Senate obstructionists? I think they are no more obstructionist than the republican senate during Clinton's term (look at the record of approvals of appointments) and are using the same tactics the republicans used. To me, what goes around comes around and the republicans are now dealing with a minority of democrats using the same tactics the republicans used in the past. Are we more partisan today? I would venture to say yes. For all the words of Bush to be a uniter rather than a divider, I would say that was a false promise. We are more divided today than I can recall in the last 40 years and positions have hardened on both sides. 
Just previous to the Fred Thompson interview, Orrin Hatch (R) from Utah and Arlen Specter (R) from PA was on the news. They clearly pointed out that being a strict constructionist on the constitution would be absurd. If one was a strict constructionist (a la Robert Bork), then we would still have slavery and segregation and women would not have the right to vote(their words, not mine). They pointed out that the constitution and the interpretation thereof by the supreme court must reflect the current time. As to liberal agenda through the back door, I disagree. I seriously doubt that the average "democrat" belongs to the far left and second, those who voted republican since Nixon have only themselves to blame since their presidents were the ones who appointed a majority of the judges on the bench today. I see Bush is also attempting to tone down the rhetoric from both fringes of both parties. However, his base of support is the far right and he now has to live with the results. I would suspect he will attempt to appoint someone more moderate and get grief from both far right and far left but it will get through the senate. As we have already seen in the news, the far right is already attacking Bush for even thinking about Gonzales. With the current hardened bunker mentality of both sides, it will be interesting to see who he nominates.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Sorry but the Republicans were not the obstructionist that the Democrats are now. The Republicans never once, that is never, stopped a up or down vote on the senate floor once the name came out of committee. If the Republicans had of wanted to play that game then they would have stopped Ruth Bader Ginsburg who after all was the head counsel for the ACLU. Can't think of a better person to have been blocked. If the 7 of the 9 appointed by Republican Presidents whom are now presently on the court is such a big deal to some of you, then why worry about it. Truth is only Sandra Day O'Connor turned out to be a disappointment, or in other words a surprise turncoat. So to claim the republicans did the same is false........... to say the Republicans have themselves to blame is false and to say that most Democrats are not far left is false. It doesn't matter who Bush nominates, the Democrat far left will try to block it. Their only goal is the 2008 election and they could care less about the people or this country. If anyone thinks President Bush is going to knuckle under to either side then they simply haven't paid much attention these last 5 years. This is one President that doesn't stick his finger in the air to test wind direction and he could care less about his legacy.

Plainsman to answer your question, I think only the far left will remain obstructionists. Seems from what I can see that a few Democrats have just about had it with the stupid games some of their leaders are playing. But, we shall soon see.

I would add that to those that think pointing out that 7 of the present nine justices were appointed by Republican Presidents with such glee as if that should mean something, I would remind them that 4 of the seven were appointed by one President......... Ronald Reagan, who though he flew the Republican banner was a moderate. He attempted to appoint judges that would interpret the constitution and their political back ground didn't matter to him. As I said, for the most part he succeeded with maybe on exception. In fact, Reagan was so moderate he was once a Democrat and if you think about it, how else did he collect what was to become know as the Reagan Democrats.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't mean to appear ignorant, but I often see the term strict constructionists and have never had it defined for me. I have noticed that it is always used by liberals, and in a derogatory fashion. I have assumed that it means sticking to the constitution completely. In that event these republicans that said women wouldn't be voting should go back and read the amendments to the constitution. 
The root of the word to me means construct, or alter, or remodel. In this context it would mean to refashion the constitution through amendments which is provided for in the constitution. So someone explain it to me.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Seems I recall Spector being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos but I don't recall seeing Hatch and Spector together on any show over the weekend. Which Show might that have been that they appeared together and made these comments? I don't see any quotation marks so is this your interruption with injected words or did they actually use the terms you describe? Just curious.......


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I also might add that the phrase "the constitution must be interpreted to reflect current time" I have never heard uttered by a conservative. I have heard it time after time from liberals and guys that want to marry their boyfriend. In reality this is simply an attempt to circumvent the constitution and legislate from the bench which is exactly what I don't want. This is what I meant by the liberals can not get their legislative agenda past the American people so they attempt to do it through the back door of the supreme court. Why else would they so vehemently appose Bush and his soon to be appointment to the supreme court? They do it because they do not like this nation as it is. Their dream is my nightmare.

Where do liberal judges get us? I will give you an example. How many murders have we been shocked by this year that had local connections? The two that stand out is Drew Shedean (can't spell can I) a liberal judge in The Peoples Republic of Minnesota set her murderer free, and now we have a child molester from Fargo who was set free by a liberal judge from where? Once again the liberal state of Minnesota. Maybe they can find the murder weapon and punish it. After all the criminal isn't really responsible.

Now for you Minnesota sportsmen this isn't aimed at you. I know you fellows who value your firearms, hunting, and freedom simply are stuck with what you have because of the huge population of liberal welfare recipients in Minneapolis and St. Paul. I have absolutely nothing against Minnesota hunters and have helped them out from time to time. As a matter of fact you have my sympathy not my contempt.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Strict constructionist: when judging the merits of a constitutional case, relies solely on the constitution as originally written and only the first 10 amendments.

Spector and Hatch on the same program, MacNeil Lehrer News hour on pbs. Direct quotations of their words. 
As to the question about whether the constitution is interpreted to reflect the current time by a conservative, Spector and John Warner both said the same thing, one on MacNeil Lehrer Warner on Fox News via CSPAN.

As to 4 of the judges appointed by Reagan, so what if he was a moderate. He was still the duly appointed leader of the Republican party at the time. Does that mean that republicans have changed since 1980? 
From my viewpoint, yes. Republicans since Reagan have moved much more to the right and is clearly evidenced by most statements I see even on this forum. That is why the center and left of center is so angered and scared by the current republican party. In their view, the entire party, led by Bush, has moved to the extreme right fringe compared to ANY previous republican administration. You fail to see what they see from their viewpoint because your own viewpoint is to the right. the current direction of the country is the living nightmare of the left. Even this forum is a reflection. I have never seen a true fire breathing leftist post on this forum.

as to Reagan being a moderate, this is clearly a conservative point of view to the right of Reagan and did not reflect the population at the time. In 1980, I seem to recall that over 65% of the country viewed Reagan as conservative, not moderate.

as to obsturctionism, There is no difference between obstructing in committee and obstruction on the floor of the senate or house.

To the actual far left liberal, Teddy Kennedy is a moderate, Bush is extreme right and reagan was halfway between middle of the road and Bush. Paul Wellstone is a a true liberal and Amy Goodman/Democracy Now is the only valid news program. MT, when he posted here was viewed as a moderate by far left liberal folks on the coast who also viewed his posts.
Finally 
Sorry got to go, out of town the next 10 days or longer


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

The following statement from Plainsman is very troubling:



> I also might add that the phrase "the constitution must be interpreted to reflect current time" I have never heard uttered by a conservative.


Have we forgotten our Civics coursework? Remember, there are three branches of government in our Republic: 1) the legislative branch creates law, 2) the executive branch enforces law, and 3) the judicial branch interprets law.

Of course the Court inteprets the constitution (which is a law) to reflect current values and culture. IT'S THEIR JOB!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> As to 4 of the judges appointed by Reagan, so what if he was a moderate. He was still the duly appointed leader of the Republican party at the time.


In my opinion this is where I think you are confused or don't understand. Reagan was *not appointed*. He was *elected*. All Presidents carry the badge of one of the two main parties but the people elect the one they see as fit to serve them. A very large percentage of Reagans votes came from as mentioned before the Reagan Democrats. Democrats crossed the line for what they saw was a man that would serve all the people and not just a party.



> You fail to see what they see from their viewpoint because your own viewpoint is to the right.


No, again you are wrong. The only reason I lean right is because the left has a far more damaging platform to society than the right does. When there is only two choices that matter you have to choose the best of the two. And no, I'm not foolish enough to throw away my vote on a dumb protest vote. Might as well stay home and lock the door.



> as to obsturctionism, There is no difference between obstructing in committee and obstruction on the floor of the senate or house.


Then your understanding of the political system is far less than I imagined.

I did enjoy your attempted humor that "Ted Kennedy is a moderate" but to some I suspect it would be viewed as a sick joke.

BigDaddy, I have a question for you................. the latest decision by the supreme court to allow private developers to take away land from a land owner, if it supposedly improves conditions for the population at large........was that interrupting the law or making new law?

If you really, truly believe what you said and I quote..."Of course the Court interprets the constitution (which is a law) to reflect current values and culture. IT'S THEIR JOB!", then I guess you have to agree with those that insist ownership of guns is no longer proper because of changing times, and as you put it current values and culture. Personally I hope the judges pay closer attention to the constitution than current values and culture.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gohon wrote:



> BigDaddy, I have a question for you................. the latest decision by the supreme court to allow private developers to take away land from a land owner, if it supposedly improves conditions for the population at large........was that interrupting the law or making new law?
> 
> If you really, truly believe what you said and I quote..."Of course the Court interprets the constitution (which is a law) to reflect current values and culture. IT'S THEIR JOB!", then I guess you have to agree with those that insist ownership of guns is no longer proper because of changing times, and as you put it current values and culture. Personally I hope the judges pay closer attention to the constitution than current values and culture.


The recent Court decision regarding personal property was not the creation of a new law, it was the interpretation of existing law. Again, if you remember your civics and political science courses, the Court's decisions are NOT law. However, if there is a dispute, people can have that dispute heard in a law. Although the Court's decisions are not law, their decisions can and do set a precedence for future interpretations of the law by other courts.

Where did I say that I that that ownership of guns is no longer popular? Judges can and do interpret the law. The danger of courts making a broad interpretation of the law exists when a law is worded vaguely and poorly. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is worded vaguely, giving courts broad interpretive power.

If we wanted to eliminate the possiblity of the Court interpreting the 2nd Amendment too broadly, we should direct the legislative branch to amend it to make the language more clear. If it was amended to plainly read, "All citizens have the right to own and use firearms" we wouldn't have the debate we have now.

Last, we need to acknowledge and accept the fact that the Constitution was written at a much different time than we have now... interstate travel was a major undertaking, news traveled slowly across the countryside, and the revolution was a fresh memory for the citizens and founding fathers.

The primary reason why the founding fathers formed a republic instead of a democracy is because they knew that poor transportation prevented the government from hearing each citizen's input in a timely manner. They also realized that small amount of interstate travel allowed for distinct cultures to develop in different areas of the country, and they wanted to make sure that all states had equal representation in the Senate. Therefore, they left it up to each state to elect and send a responsible person to speak on its behalf.

The Constitution is a beautiful document that has served us well. However, why are we so threatened and scared to review it from time to time to see whether it serves our country in 2005 as well as it did when it was written?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

> BigDaddy, I have a question for you................. the latest decision by the supreme court to allow private developers to take away land from a land owner, if it supposedly improves conditions for the population at large........was that interrupting the law or making new law?


It was enacting socialism through the legal system. Interpretation of the law is no different than changing the law when it is done at the supreme court level because all appeals will eventually lead to the supreme court and they will now fall back on this interpretation. The difference is wording not in the ultimate effect this "interpretation" will have.

I recently had a conversation with an economist who stressed that our economic system is only upheld by our laws and that as soon as we change our laws then we have in effect changed our economic structure.

This seems rather obvious most of you would say. However, at some point we will cross a threshold where our laws have changed so much that our economic structure in this country (capitalism) will be in direct contrast to our laws. I fear the infrastructure and social structure by which our economy is based will not be able to change as fast as our laws. Hence, we will enter a period of extreme inefficiency and our standard of living will be very much effected.

I think the decision of our supreme court is a terrible step in the wrong direction.

I don't know about you guys but my motivation is governed by how much my work improves my standard of living. To be honest, if I have to work to support everyone else, I'm probably going to quit working.

The idea of the government allocating resources is stupid and has proven itself stupid throughout history.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

gander,

I totally agree with you. The recent decison by the Court is a slap in the face to private property rights. However, there is an easy fix... the legislative branch can enact a law to make it clear that muncipalities cannot take personal property without the owners consent. If this is done, the Court's decision is moot.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

There are fixes within the system. However, it scares me more than a little that people at that level of our government would make such a decision. It's a very strong indication of the direction some would like our country to take.

In my opinion we have an economic structure that rewards people for hard work. If you understand the structure it is rather easy to be successful but it takes hard work to learn it. Instead of telling people they need to work hard to learn our economic system, one that in my opinion works rather well, the supreme court is saying "Go ahead and be lazy we will change the system so we can think for you".

Heading down this path not only stomps property rights, it gives way to much power to the government and trains people to be mindless government followers with their hand out. Don't worry big brother will help you as long as you conform. :eyeroll:

The problem is not the structure of the system. The problem is that the fix to this little stunt by the supreme court takes democracy.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

BigDaddy,

Despite the fact you didn't answer my question as to whether YOU think it was a interpretation of the law or a re-write of the law, I find it odd that you continue to lecture about civics. I believe most people around here are well aware what the courts are suppose to do but the question is did they in fact do it. In my mind, no they did not and you later in a post to Gander confirmed that by your comment it was a slap in the face to private law rights. Wouldn't be a slap in the face had they simply interrupted the law but the fact is they created a new law with their out of bounds interpretation.

Never said you had said that ownership of guns is no longer popular now did I? However if you believe the Constitution must be interrupted only according to present times, which you did say, then you are in fact siding with those that claim the 2 amendment is no longer valid. You can't have it both ways. And as to amending any amendment .... to my way of thinking that is a slippery road to abolishing the constitution as we know it.

BTW, the 2nd amendment is very clear in saying that we do in fact have the right to own and use firearms. It doesn't need to be changed at all. What most people want to do is simply read the amendment as one long sentence. Take a closer look .............. those commas are place at strategic points that clearly make the amendment more powerful than most realize and very difficult for the gun grabbers to overcome. Want to lose your gun rights just be foolish enough to amend the second amendment.

I don't know where you got this stuff about interstate travel playing a part in the writing of the constitution. I suspect somehow you have formed this opinion from misguided sources but hell, that's just my opinion. One last point .......... we have a Republic because the founding fathers wanted the people to rule and in a Republic the people rule and minorities are protected from government. Sadly we are slowly and unwittingly moving to a Democracy where majority rules and the minority will be the losers. Nope ................ don't think I need to refresh myself in civics........ I understand it very well thank you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Heres a good read written about this issue by
Thomas Sowell ( I inserted the highlighting for emphasis)

June 27, 2005

You may own your own home and expect to live there the rest of your life. But keep your bags packed, because the Supreme Court of the United States has decreed that local politicians can take your property away and turn it over to someone else, just by using the magic words "public purpose."

We're not talking about the government taking your home in order to build a reservoir or a highway for the benefit of the public. The Constitution always allowed the government to take private property for "public use," provided the property owner was paid "just compensation."

*What the latest Supreme Court decision does with verbal sleight-of-hand is change the Constitution's requirement of "public use" to a more expansive power to confiscate private property for whatever is called "public purpose" -- including turning that property over to some other private party.*

In this case -- Kelo v. New London -- the private parties to whom the government would turn over confiscated properties include a hotel, restaurants, shops, and a pharmaceutical company.

These are not public uses, as the Constitution requires, but are said to serve "public purposes," as courts have expanded the concept beyond the language of the 5th Amendment -- reflecting those "evolving" circumstances so dear to judges who rewrite the Constitution to suit their own tastes.

No sane person has ever denied that circumstances change or that laws need to change to meet new circumstances. But that is wholly different from saying that judges are the ones to decide which laws need changing and in what way at what time.

What are legislatures for except to legislate? What is the separation of powers for except to keep legislative, executive and judicial powers separate?

When the 5 to 4 Supreme Court majority "rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" because of the "evolving needs of society," it violated the Constitutional separation of powers on which the American system of government is based.

When the Supreme Court majority referred to its "deference to legislative judgments" about the taking of property, it was as disingenuous as it was inconsistent. If Constitutional rights of individuals are to be waved aside because of "deference" to another branch of government, then the citizens may as well not have Constitutional rights.

What are these rights supposed to protect the citizens from, if not the government? :eyeroll:

This very Court, just days before, showed no such deference to a state's law permitting the execution of murderers who were not yet 18. *Such selective "deference" amounts to judicial policy-making rather than the carrying out of the law.*
Surely the Justices must know that politicians whose whole careers have been built on their ability to spin words can always come up with some words that will claim that there is what they can call a "public purpose" in what they are doing.

How many private homeowners can afford to litigate such claims all the way up and down the judicial food chain? Apartment dwellers who are thrown out on the street by the bulldozers are even less able to defend themselves with litigation.

The best that can be said for the Supreme Court majority's opinion is that it follows -- and extends -- certain judicial precedents. But, as Justice Clarence Thomas said in dissent, these "misguided lines of precedent" need to be reconsidered, so as to "return to the original meaning of the Public Use Clause" in the Constitution.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent points out that the five Justices in the majority -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy -- "wash out any distinction between private and public use of property." As a result, she adds: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

*In other words, politicians can replace your home with whatever they expect will pay more taxes than you do -- and call their money grab a "public purpose."*
End quote. 
I (Bobm) think this last bold sentence is the real issue and our ignorant public just ignores it, no free country can survive without the right to own property. All some developer has to do is convince the local political machine that he can increase the tax earniing potential of your property and they can now legally boot you off of it. :******: Its appalling how few people seem to care.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

BigDaddy said:


> The following statement from Plainsman is very troubling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bigdaddy

Lets not get condescending there big guy, the lesson stated the obvious for most of us didn't it?

I am curious why that statement troubles you. I know why it troubles some liberals. To start with let me give you a definition of what I think interpretation means in this case, to me anyway. Actually your post fits in very well with the way I think, so perhaps we do not think that differently after all.

When you say interpret to me that means it is taking imagination to make the constitution answer a particular legal question. I think, as you said, the constitution is quite clear and the judges job is to use their legal knowledge to apply the constitution to questionable actions. If they must interpret then the constitution isn't that clear. In this case it should be the job of the judicial branch to rewrite it clearly, the president to sign it, and the states to ratify it. These steps make the change difficult for a purpose, so no one group can endanger the freedoms that the constitution currently guarantees us.

So, I don't want guessing (interpretation) because I don't want a single person, or even nine old geezers in depends making decisions that affect this nation. These few people will interpret with personal bias, and I don't want left or right bias. Today's politicians are not as honest as those of years ago, and I don't trust the future of America to small groups.

I have noticed since 1970 (has gone on longer I am sure, but this is when I noticed it) that the liberals love the supreme court. I have noticed that when they can not win in the election booth they try to win through the courts. I know, I know, not all of them are that way, but there is a core group that has no respect for elections or the constitution.

It is amazing how we can all see things differently. Many democrats think the supreme court put Bush in office, and I see the supreme court used in the wrong way to the benefit of liberals. When I think of Florida I think of the democrats that tried to get the soldiers absentee votes thrown out. Why, because they vote overwhelmingly conservative. And why did the liberals push so hard to let the prisoners in Florida vote. Because the criminals will vote overwhelmingly liberal.

The far left in Washington is afraid of Bush's choice, because they see the tool they use to circumvent the wishes of the people becoming less bias.

OK, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

Alright why dont we just have 2 judges a conservative and a liberal judge? 
ovously there will be disputs but in general it woudl be a good idea


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I've been off the board for a couple of days, and it looks like there was lots of discussion on this subject. Let me address a few questions and comments that were recently made:

*1. Gohon's question*
Gohon wrote:



> BigDaddy, I have a question for you................. the latest decision by the supreme court to allow private developers to take away land from a land owner, if it supposedly improves conditions for the population at large........was that interrupting the law or making new law?


to which I replied:



> The recent Court decision regarding personal property was not the creation of a new law, it was the interpretation of existing law. Again, if you remember your civics and political science courses, the Court's decisions are NOT law.


Gohon subsequently wrote:



> Despite the fact you didn't answer my question as to whether YOU think it was a interpretation of the law or a re-write of the law, I find it odd that you continue to lecture about civics.


This where I am confused because I did answer the question. Again, in my opinion, the Court did not re-write the law because the Court can't re-write the law. Only the legislative branch can re-write the law. The courts can only interpret the law.

*2. Plainsman's statement*
Plainsman wrote:



> Lets not get condescending there big guy, the lesson stated the obvious for most of us didn't it?


Again, let me restate my earlier statements. People are concerned about the courts overstepping their authority to "re-write" the law. The courts CAN'T re-write the law, and I simply wanted to remind people of that fact.

*3. Gohon's gun control question*

Gohon wrote:


> If you really, truly believe what you said and I quote..."Of course the Court interprets the constitution (which is a law) to reflect current values and culture. IT'S THEIR JOB!", then I guess you have to agree with those that insist ownership of guns is no longer proper because of changing times, and as you put it current values and culture.


then he wrote:


> However if you believe the Constitution must be interrupted only according to present times, which you did say, then you are in fact siding with those that claim the 2 amendment is no longer valid. You can't have it both ways.


I am completely confused here unless Gohon is assuming that the majority of Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. If the majority of Americans truly want to repeal it, then the legislative branch should, just like the legislative branch should amend the law to prohibit abortion if the majority of people feel this way.

The legislative branch has the authority (and obligation) to amend the law (including the Constitution) according to the will of the people. We are a government "of the people" are we not?

*4. Re-stating the obvious*
Last, a common concern by many people here is that the new justice will interpret the law contrary to popular belief or that they will overstep their authority by interpreting a law with too much latitude.

Almost without exception, varying interpretations of the law occur when a law is worded vaguely and in a way that leaves it open to multiple interpretations. The easiest fix is for the legislative branch to re-word the law to make it explicity clear. This leaves a court with limited interpretive power.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

BigDaddy, no one including myself ever said the court physically re-wrote the law. However considering that they have the power to take a law that is very clear and interrupt it with a new definition, knowing full well what the definition really is but knowing also there is no higher authority to challenge them, is in effect rewriting the law. All you have to do is take a look at the number of times congress has had to re-do a law, not because it was wrong in the first place but in order to stop the courts from legislating from the bench.

I also never said that the majority of Americans want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But, there are those that do and their sole excuse is the same reasoning you present, in that the constitution is outdated and needs to be modernized.

I would also add we are not as far apart as it may seem. We simply disagree on how we got there I think, and though we agree things need to change I strongly oppose amending any of the original amendments to the constitution. Not sure how you really stand on that last part.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy

I just noticed your signature line, I like it. I truly believe one I heard a few years ago: "you can not judge a man by how he treats those above him, but you can judge a man by how he treats those below him". As in line of command at work I guess is how I would interpret it.


----------

