|
|
|
|
|
|
by kyrra
1412 days ago
|
|
|
Why should the court be in the business of expanding rights? I think you should go read and understand what the three branches of the federal government should do. I think people have gotten used to the supreme Court that pushes a semi-majority opinion of certain topics across the country. We've seen this with abortion, same-sex marriage, and many other topics. The problem is this overrides the Democratic process. While some people will complain that the federal government is really slow at passing laws, I see that as a good thing. And makes it so that an opinion must be popular around the entire country before it can really become law. Do you want a supreme Court passing what are effectively new laws if that court had a majority of fundamentalist Christians on it that weren't originalist, but rather pushing their agenda? Then you would get the supreme Court saying there is no right to gay marriage. We could also get the supreme Court to rule that a baby in utero is considered a human life and aborting it would be murder. Pushing the supreme Court to be only a body that rules on the laws that are available to it and not reading new language into then, I think will make everybody happy in the long run. |
|
|
The Constitution says nothing about a Department of the Air Force. Should it be legal to have a Department of the Air Force? The Constitution mentions “War Department”. It says nothing about a Department of Defense. Should that be legal? Well, the courts would throw out any challenge to the constitutionality of the Department of the Air Force because of the logical deductions of the statements in the Constitution.
Repeat the process for all statements in the Constitution and after 200 years you get a vast collection of legal opinions and judgments.