On 01/06/2011 01:49 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Coincidentally the Progressives have been active in colleges and
politics in America the last 100 years.


And how about those Progressives that gave us the progressive income tax
and the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then they gave us Prohibition.

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Don't confuse the Progressive Movement with today's liberals; two
different animals sharing the same root word.

What happened in 1710 of such legal import that you keep referring to it?

When discussing "original intent" please remember the Founders were
middle class farmers who tended toward liberal democracy. The
Federalists were the liberals. The antifederalists were the
conservatives. None of the founders was rich by today's standards.

Therefore when an elite Supreme Court justice like Nino Scalia, who
routinely hangs out with powerful captains of industry, attempts to
divine "original intent" I want to puke.