Feb. 02 2011, 11:03 am
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 30 2011, 7:02 am
Quote: caltrek2 @ Jan. 30 2011, 6:32 am
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 30 2011, 6:06 am
Quote: caltrek2 @ Jan. 30 2011, 4:55 am
Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Jan. 29 2011, 8:07 pm
Quote: caltrek2 @ Jan. 29 2011, 7:06 pm
>BamBam: It's a very slippery slope - kinda like replicative fading. Over time, the original specimen is not even close to the current one - and in the case of your precious precedent - it conflicts with the Constitution.
>caltrek: Your opinion should only be what counts then? I am afraid that with that philospohy you will lead a very frustrated and alientaed life in regards to how you see the laws and the Constitution of this country put in place.
This isn't about me - it's about this country and our laws. If we cannot respect the Constitution, then nothing is safe. And while progressives may try to alienate me, I have the comradery of others that have sworn to support and defend our Constitution.
What's funny is that progressives seem to think it's all about them - use anything they can to get their agenda though - including using made-up precedent over the Constitution.
Again, you are missing the point. Precedent is used to interpret the Constitution, not suprecede it. Your approach simply allows judges to interpret the Constitution any damn well they please. Don't like health care legislation - strike it down. Want to deprive indiviudals of free speech - use some pretense or another from other aspects of the Constitution and ignore the First Amendment - and so on and so forth. Precedent allows for a more even playing field and gives the legislative and executive branches a sense of how the courts are going to interpret legislation and regulatroy efforts. This is important because of the power that would otherwise be rendered to the Supreme Court. Other wise the Court would be free to act on its own political biases - something that happens all too often as it is (think Florida and the year 2000).
No, I'm not missing the point - when people use precedent to make decisions and create their own precedent, things change from the original intent - this is what has happened many times. There are precedents out there that confict with each other as well as the Constitution - but people, like you, still use them because they're precedent. I'm not saying to throw out precedent, but each ruling must still be based on the Constitution first and foremost.
Again, no real problem here.
Well, not for the progressives trying very hard to get away from the Constitution...