Comments on: Lege ponders bill to ignore Fed’l Constitution

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:53:44 +0000

Of course, Ryan, you do realize that “contemporaneous standards” can be revised against criminals, and this is the only way to get those on record.

By: Ryan McKeen

Ryan McKeen — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:02:54 +0000

A proposed bill is the lowest form of anything that goes on at the legislature. Proposed bills happen at the very beginning of a session and are often insane. Committees review proposed bills and then decide whether or not to do anything (i.e. a public hearing) or just let the idea die.

None of this changes the fact that proposing this bill requires one to embrace one’s own ignorance.

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:40:02 +0000

Actually, I believe so. Otherwise, the only “law” which has teeth is that the Supreme Court’s opinions are to be followed. Where the Supreme Court blatantly blows off the law, as it did in Kennedy, it cannot complain when others follow its example.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:10:07 +0000

So States should be free to ignore SCOTUS decisions they don’t agree with? Okay…

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:55:14 +0000

That’s not the issue, Gid. The Fourteeth Amendment acts as a limitation on the power of states. There’s simply no such limitation in the constitution. The Supreme Court made it up.

They should be ignored.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:50:17 +0000

Right, because the Constitution specifically permits the death penalty for rape of child which does not result in death.

Weak.

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:02:33 +0000

Well, since the Supreme Court ignored the Constitution in Kennedy, it’s not like anyone can complain when people ignore what the Supreme Court says.