|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vt edu> wrote:
>> As it should be, but states do it for a variety of reasons. The easiest
>> to understand is that individual laws can not contradict the
>> constitution, but amendments to it can. So, should the government want
>> to push through a law that they know would violate certain rights set
>> out in the constitution, and have voting power to get it done, an
>> amendment is the better way to go.
>
> Doesn't that make the whole point of having a constitution kind of moot?
>
> "We don't like this part of the constitution. No problem, we'll just add
> an amendment which changes it." So what's the point in having a constitution
> in the first place?
>
Which is probably one of the reasons why there was so much fuss about an
written one. </smugness>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |