Replies

The "Congress shall make no law..." bit you quote is an excellent example. Do you think porn shops should be allowed to operate next to schools and churches? I doubt it. Well, that kind of goes against the clear words "Congress shall make no law..." now doesn't it?

What I think with regard to whether porn shops should be allowed to operate next to schools and churches has no relevancy with regard to what is constitutional. If I were to think and judge otherwise, it would be judicial activism. Did I really just have to say that?

There is no Article I Section 8 authority under the constitution for Congress to pass any such law regulating what you've suggested. If the state or local municipality wishes to do so with zoning laws or otherwise, under their state constitution, then they have every right. You see, just as important as what congress is prohibited from doing, is what congress is granted authority to do. That list is very short. Law school seems to make the list much, much longer.

So, what are your qualifications for a SC justice? Anyone who can read at an 11th or 12th grade level (the approximate level at which the Constitution is written)?

Surely, if it's good enough for the President of the US, it's good enough for a SCOTUS justice. I happen to think that the authors of the constitution knew what they were doing when they created the "requirements" for SCOTUS justices. Personally, I think someone with an 8th grade education can read and understand the Constitution. Surely, it's not the founding fathers' fault that our educational standards have plummeted. But, I can say that all of those politicians, with all of those fancy law degrees have had something to do with it.

BTW, you do know that Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist sometimes disagreed with each other don't you? How do you explain this? I think that proves there is a little more to it (being a SC justice) than simply being able to read and understand the constitution.

Maybe if you gave me an example, I could actually respond. I happen to think that the legal wrangling that occurs, even on the same "side" of an argument, occurs as a result of the justices' legalistic backgrounds. I don't see how the fact that they're human "proves" anything.

Furthermore, it certainly seems that whatever disagreements they may have only serve to bolster my point.

There is no Article I Section 8 authority under the constitution for Congress to pass any such law regulating what you've suggested. If the state or local municipality wishes to do so with zoning laws or otherwise, under their state constitution, then they have every right.

Look, I don't want to start a flame war with you, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The Bill of Rights applies equally to the Federal governement as it does the State governments, therefore your whole premise is flawed.