Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Devil's Advocate, Revisited

Expand Messages
  • Ron
    ... That is part of the risky business I brought up in my post, but a necessary one in my estimation. The Bill of Rights, as they now exist, come as an after
    Message 1 of 129 , Mar 13, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In NationalConstitutionalConvention06@yahoogroups.com, "David
      Macko" <dmacko@...> wrote:

      > The fact that the Bill of Rights would be up for grabs and subject to
      > debate is enough to oppose another Constitutional Convention now.

      That is part of the "risky business" I brought up in my post, but a
      necessary one in my estimation. The Bill of Rights, as they now exist,
      come as an after thought in the structure of the Constitution. Those
      enumerated rights are' in part, out of date; and, in part, arachaic in
      their wording. I am also less than thrilled with the fact that the
      Ninth Amendment is so ill-used by both Democrats and Republicans. As I
      see it, the Bill of Rights have themselves been amended over the
      years, not by any natural process, but by re-interpretation. In other
      words, I see the Bill of Rights under threat without any convention or
      other amendment process involved.

      > There certainly are weaknesses which should be corrected and what
      > you rightly describe as the contamination of case law should be
      expunged.

      I'm certainly glad you agree with me in this. The problem here is how
      do we expunge bad cases law? The only way that I'm familar with is a
      mount of good case law to counter it. And, that really doesn't expunge
      the bad case law; it only covers it up like my cats do their potty-box
      business. The bad case law remains, and is eventually dredged up to be
      used by attorneys to confound other atttorneys and the courts. It is
      better, IMO, to lay a new constitutional foundation and labour to
      prevent bad case law from being created.

      > These actions can be taken without the risks of a Constitutional
      Convention.
      > You should recall that the last one started as an attempt to amend
      the
      > Articles of Confederation.

      I readily agree in part, but only in part.

      rhc
    • Michael Bindner
      http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html Michael Bindner The Site
      Message 129 of 129 , Sep 18, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.