ANYTIME THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT votes five to four, controversy is inevitable. shouldn't the supreme court always, or almost always vote nine nothing? isn't the U.S. constitution explicit, clearly written, and in plain sight for all to see?
words, and therefore documents, proclamations, and books, are jubject to interpretation, no matter how clear and absolute we try to make them. that's why it seems sensless to ever regard any collection of words printed on any paper or stone, as "sacred". words are tools, and all tools have limitations, all tools eventually require replacing.
we assume, and always have, that the american constitution allows anything that it does not eplicitly prohibit. therefore anytime the supreme overturns a law of congress, ti does so with due consideration, deliberation, hesitation.
obama's people studied the constitutionality of obama care before they ever recommended the president sponsor it. and still, it could easily have been rendered unconstututional.
only chief justice roberts, with his broad definitaion of the word "tax" saved the day for obama care.
republicans should respect justice roberts for not wanting to be an activist judge, not legislating from the bench, by upholding a law he doubltless does not like; but they won't; republicans and conservatives (basically the same thing) will do just the opposite, chastise the court for being activist,
claiming that by upholding an unconstitutional law they are legislating from the bench.
whatever...
Bb
please scroll down for more articles in The Truthless Reconciler and American Explicator!THANKS!
No comments:
Post a Comment