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

To: kabar

"Of course not. My point is that in order to make such a change, you will have to go through the constitutional process. I don't want SCOTUS deciding."

The supreme court, if it has 5 people who believe in originalism on it, could clarify the issue with another law. It would just need to work its way through the court system.

You don't need another constitutional amendment any more than you need another constitutional amendment to overturn anti-gun laws. The underlying amendment is already there - it just needs to be intrepreted like it was meant to be.


120 posted on 11/15/2005 9:18:09 AM PST by flashbunny (LOCKBOX: Where most republicans keep their gonads after they arrive in Washington D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: flashbunny
The supreme court, if it has 5 people who believe in originalism on it, could clarify the issue with another law. It would just need to work its way through the court system.

I doubt it. The 14th amendment has been in place a long time and there are plenty of legal precedents to make it settled law.

You don't need another constitutional amendment any more than you need another constitutional amendment to overturn anti-gun laws. The underlying amendment is already there - it just needs to be intrepreted like it was meant to be.

I disagree. I don't want to rely on the whims of future SCOTUS' to interpret the law. A well-written, unambiguous constitutional amendment will insure that they will not have the power to decide in the future.

167 posted on 11/15/2005 10:07:20 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | 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