View Single Post
Old 09-21-2008, 07:36 AM   #57
Bearcat2005 Bearcat2005 is offline
Living the dream
 
Bearcat2005's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2003
Casino cash: $5460
Quote:
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
No offense, but I don't think you guys qualify as strict constructionists.
First off this link has completely no details to the case so with my very limited knowledge of this case I will remark.


I fail to see your arguement. A strict constructionalist would uphold any local or state law as long as it did not violate the constitution, that is the arguement here not the sagging. Your point is? You don't have to be a strict construtionalist to do this. If you are trying to attack this particular form of constitutional interpretation you are doing a bad job.

Now for a judge to say its unconstitutional, the only arguement I find is that this "offense" is in violation of a state or community law. (The article was VERY vague with details). All the judge was doing was upholding current community or state laws. If people don't like the law they should petition against it and get a ballot started.

If this was a federal judge he is just upholding the 10th amendment.

IMO, if a kid wants to sag that is his personal choice. I have no problem with it as long as there is no public nudity taking place.
Posts: 1,157
Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.Bearcat2005 is not part of the Right 53.
  Reply With Quote