« Eleanor Smeal dissembles on the upcoming Supreme Court battle | Main | David Remnick picks up the anti-dynasty meme »

July 06, 2005


Hold on a minute there, it's intellectually dishonest to support a law but not support a constitutional amendment? Should all laws to be passed by congress be exempt from judicial review? Is Ben Fritz saying that all laws need to be passed in the form of constitutional amendments? If not, what makes this flag-burning law so different that it is intellectually dishonest to vote for it's passage but deny it's enshrinement in the constitution? Or why is it permissable to pass other laws without simultaneously supporting amendments securing the right of Congress to pass such a law?

Curtis, how do you reconcile supporting legislation that will demonstrably not pass the judicial litmus test, but not supporting the constitutional amendment that would allow such legislation to surpass that obstacle? Can you truly have it both ways?

Nobody has said that laws should be exempt from judicial reviews, or that they need to be passed as constitutional amendments. Perhaps you should read things more closely.

The comments to this entry are closed.