Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's false equivalence and you know it. The Supreme Court is acting within its purview when it interprets the Constitution. Disagreement with DK does not a tyrant make.
|
yes, it does. when the constitution was ratified, every single able bodied male KNEW that their right to arms couldn't be touched. Now, we have 'no right is absolute', reasonable regulation, and 'machine guns are too dangerous for civilians to own and that's why we have laws against them'. ALL of these are due to interpretations of later supreme courts in deciding whats 'best' for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Actually the responsibility of the Supreme Court according to the Constitution itself in section 2 of Article 3 is to make determinations as to the interpretation of the Constitution. No one is "changing the Constitution at will", though. The Supreme Court didn't add the General Welfare clause.
|
this is not quite correct. their responsibility is to decide many different types of cases according to the constitutional text. Interpretation only came about from madison v. marbury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Can you explain the difference, in your mind, between general and specific funding? Can you give examples of each?
|
hamilton and jefferson defined it quite well. i'll go with their definitions.