The greediest blog on the net.
Friday, May 14, 2004
Here are some excerpts from this article (?), which I found to be very good.
Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.
The immediate purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide a constitutional basis for a proposed civil rights act.
Kind of. Congress passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, but Johnson vetoed it because it was unconstitutional. Knowing that he was correct, Congress made it constitutional by granting themselves the power to enact it in an amendment (14th).
At the federal level, “checks and balances” has ceased to include judicial review.
Hamilton, you know, argued against adding a Bill of Rights, on grounds that it would be redundant and confusing. He thought it would seem to imply that the federal government had more powers than it had been given. Why say, he asked, that the freedom of the press shall not be infringed, when the federal government would have no power by which it could be infringed?
Posted by Gel 12:17 AM Post a Comment
Real Friends' Blogs