Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lowbridge

Efforts to "fix" the Fifth are doomed to fail as long as the court has justices who refuse to be restrained by the text of the document.

We could start this discussion by asking a simple question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand? And how long ago did the Court start nullifcation by interpretation? In the case of the Second, almost 70 years ago with Miller.

There is a saying in politics: personnel is policy. This matter is a really a personnel problem. Impeach the Justices who cannot or will not read the plain text. Replace them with Justices who will.


50 posted on 06/25/2005 1:31:51 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: theBuckwheat
start this discussion by asking a simple question: What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard to understand?

Start at a more fundamental level. The simple question is not simple at all without a good foundation. What is the nature and origin of private property? We will find little agreement even on this forum when we dig deep enough, but we will find that political thought on the entity has been divided into several ideas since the beginning of civilization.

51 posted on 06/25/2005 1:35:29 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson