They could if they wanted.If whether the draft constitutes involuntary servitude is not a question before the court they will not be ruling on it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
They could if they wanted.If whether the draft constitutes involuntary servitude is not a question before the court they will not be ruling on it.
That would only get you recruited into the Scots Guards!I'm just saying knee high silk socks feel awfully good.
Are you rooting legislation from the bench?They could if they wanted.
No.Are you rooting legislation from the bench?
Are you saying you wouldn't approve of the SCOTUS ruling that the draft runs afoul of the prohibition on involuntary servitude?No.
I see a common mistaken inference in all discussions.
When an observation is made, people often presume
that to speak of it is to approve of it.
I addressed the Supremes making new law.Are you saying you wouldn't approve of the SCOTUS ruling that the draft runs afoul of the prohibition on involuntary servitude?
Only if, and that is a humongous if, it is brought before any courtI addressed the Supremes making new law.
That's not their job, but it happens.
I'd approve of ruling the draft is unconstitutional.
This is within their power.
I make no predictions.Only if, and that is a humongous if, it is brought before any court
If you don't like courts setting precedent, you always have the option not to live in a country with a Common Law system.I addressed the Supremes making new law.
That's not their job, but it happens.
I'd approve of ruling the draft is unconstitutional.
This is within their power.
I like courts honoring the Constitution.If you don't like courts setting precedent....
Courts shouldn't "honor" a law, but read and interpret it.I like courts honoring the Constitution.
You don't?
Duh.Courts shouldn't "honor" a law, but read and interpret it.
So civil liberties granted by the Constitution are justUnthinking veneration is a poor method for applying old rule books to new situations, in my opinion.
It's remarkable how much of this response consists of reading statements into my posts that aren't there.So civil liberties granted by the Constitution are just
obsolete old rules to you? I'm not surprised.
Here, we place limits on governmental power over us.
I'm just playing your game by your rules.It's remarkable how much of this response consists of reading statements into my posts that aren't there.
A likely story.I'm just playing your game by your rules.
If one doesn't enjoy the game,A likely story.