Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So the courts should have declared alcohol was unconstitutional?

(I know that's absurd, I'm just completing the analogy to show that it doesn't make sense.)

It isn't meant as a direct analogy of respective constitutionality. I'm reading your comments as saying that [US] state-level social darwininsm would produce a tidy, satisfying resolution (IE quell the public debate) and wondering what would lead you to believe that...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Yeah, UK is another interesting aspect to it.

BTW., I forgot to say that I prefer the US way of doing it. Constitution has more value when it's not changed every couple of decades.

It ages like cheese?


EDIT: Oh, there's been five pages of replies.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, I wasn't saying the debate would go away. I was saying it wouldn't have taken on the character that it has - one with only two absolute choices, a whole crop of single-issue voters, and no possible democratic resolution.

[MRT144]

so because of the result that was not foreseen, the decision should have never been made?

[Kuciwalker]

The decision shouldn't have been made because it's a bad decision not plausibly grounded in the Constitution

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The decision shouldn't have been made because it's a bad decision not plausibly grounded in the Constitution

but you havent shown why it isn't grounded.

[MRT144]

and its a bad decision because it doesnt meet the way you view the constitution?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
but you havent shown why it isn't grounded.

Because this isn't a thread about the specific legal arguments in Roe. And, frankly, I'm not going to argue it with you. Getting any marginally complex point through to you is a torturous process. I'll happily argue it with Ramo or Imran or anyone else with a clue.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
and its a bad decision because it doesnt meet the way you view the constitution?

It's a bad decision because it doesn't meet any reasonable view of the constitution. In my opinion. Obviously.

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that interpretation is subjective doesn't make all interpretations equally correct.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Because this isn't a thread about the specific legal arguments in Roe. And, frankly, I'm not going to argue it with you. Getting any marginally complex point through to you is a torturous process.

what makes you think I dont get it

[Kuciwalker]

My assumption that you don't want to look like an idiot.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's a bad decision because it doesn't meet any reasonable view of the constitution. In my opinion. Obviously.

Id like to point out that the people on SCOTUS are in general, respected for their ability to view the constitution reasonably.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
My assumption that you don't want to look like an idiot.

If I didnt want to look like an idiot I would have conceeded you were right all along and that I agree with you (which I do on certain points) but I find a lot of the reasoning you've provided to be suspect and not grounded in any framework that can be objectively viewed.