[eDebate] ans. elliott

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Sat May 13 13:34:40 CDT 2006

Paul states:

"It is not that they do not compete-- rather, no system of rational
decision-making would pick between the two. Since no one would decide
between congress on the one hand or the courts on the other hand, there is
no literature discussing this choice in the context presented in the debate.
  It is an absurdity."

The Quick Response: See Marbury vs. Madison.

The longer version:

What? What comic books have you been reading? This is EXACTLY the debates
constitutional scholars have in the literature all of the time as well as
political sci professors and law professors---namely, do we as a nation allow 9
people to make the big Decsions or do we let Congress. Sport, this IS THE debate
over strict construction versus liberal construction in jurisprudence and
judical temperment theory.  So, you can blow it off as being absurd and
"non-rational," but there are plenty of people who think that such a decision
over which actor actually acts to effectuate change really matters--especially
in the specific case of Constitutional Rights.

For example, there is plenty of historical criticism of why Roe was bad--not
because it gave women the right to abortion, but because it was a Supreme Court
decision rather than the States invidually, or Congress through an Amendment
could have accomplished the same thing. Not to mention the Civil Rights, Hollow
Hope arguments that states, simply put, that one Court victory leads to
advoactes for social change running to the courts which (1) wastes resources
and (2) prevents real social change that the painful process of consensus
building requires.

You don't think there is literature out there saying that it is bad for the
Courts to make these big social engineering decsions over the Congress? Sad.

The rest of your arguments are just non-sensical.


More information about the Mailman mailing list