| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
Because I value liberty. By your own admission (and I do appreciate your sarcasm; one of my gifts as well), the alternative to interpreting the constitution according to it's original intent, is to render this not a nation of laws, but of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat that has allowed wealth redistribution schemes, the elimination of the respect for private property rights, and mandated a disrespect of life. As you quote, the supreme court, vested with the judicial power, [emphasis mine] should be the final check on both legislative and administrative action, not the main instigator in the decline of liberty.
The fact that the court has for the most part abandoned it's responsibility to show restraint, (not good behavior at all), does not mean that I need to abandon my advocay of liberty.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
And by your own admission, the constitution did nothing to prevent all that, so it obviously doesn't work.
I advocate liberty, too. That's why I reject the idea that politicians can have the power to rule and rob just because a piece of paper says so.
--Jackney Sneeb |