I agree, it does seem like he regrets that the court doesn't have that right. But what he says is that the community groups can work for the redistribution, and he didn't say that the court should.
Too, doesn't it sound as if he finds it to be flawed when he says it is mostly about negative rights and not what the government must do for you, at least as interpreted at that time.
Article III is stated below. The power of the United States Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, to determine the constitutionality of laws (which is the judicial activism and judicial restraint issue) is NOT in Article III. That power, the power of judicial review,
I see what you are saying. So would you think that the Constitution is NOT the "living document" that some claim it to be but rather a rock and our very foundation that can only be changed
Pages
I agree, it does seem like he regrets that the court doesn't have that right. But what he says is that the community groups can work for the redistribution, and he didn't say that the court should.
Where did he use the word 'flawed?"
<>The entire discussion was about the 60's civil rights movement ...>
I assume that came from the OP.
Too, doesn't it sound as if he finds it to be flawed when he says it is mostly about negative rights and not what the government must do for you, at least as interpreted at that time.
Actually it sounded as if he thought the civil rights movement had flaws and that the Supreme court was not as activist as people said it was.
Additionally, the whole strict/loose interpretation thing is funny, since that role of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution at all.
<>Additionally, the whole strict/loose interpretation thing is funny, since that role of the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution at all.<>
I know you know this, but
I see what you are saying. So would you think that the Constitution is NOT the "living document" that some claim it to be but rather a rock and our very foundation that can only be changed
Pages