Quote:
Originally Posted by Soriak  A House Resolution (which is what this is) can't invalidate parts of the constitution. But I think Paul supports a strict literal reading/interpretation without extending the protections as they have been. ie a "Search" being only a search of your body or house, not wiretapping or reading your e-mails...
I just wonder how far the 14th amendment really would go with such reading, but I suppose it's all hypothetical - HR300 is never going to pass.
Good post btw, Havelock. |
What gives you that idea? About the wiretapping I mean.
And yes a House resolution can't invalidate part of the Constitution, but if it brings to light one part of the Constitution (State's rights) that disagrees with other parts (14th Amendment), you're stuck in the same situation of "Which do we enforce?" Laws aren't really written in stone, Governments can and do pick which ones to enforce.
It was a good, informative post by Havelock, but it missed the point. Especially since the act is specifically slated by Ron Paul as the start of legislation to correct constitutional violations. Other things would certainly follow.
It won't pass though, so the whole thing really is moot for the moment.
