Ruling: Bono vs. Atlasia

[Peter]

Will Texasgurl be filing a dissenting opinion?

[Peter]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.

I don't honestly think any decision this Court will make could beat Harry v. M. Justices may have let ideology affect their judgement, but certainly the Court's reasoning stands up to a basic credibility test in that it has basis in the Constitution even if its not the correct interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the author insisted on removing the phrase "general welfare" from what is in the real US constitution. So I would strongly dispute that the Constitution authorises the federal government to act in the common good on matters outside its specifically enumerated powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean like the migrendel court?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a big opponent of the "spirit" of the law interpretations that people try to put on the Constitution. It is either legal or its not, there's no grey area where you claim the "spirit" of the law.

[Peter]

My commentary on this ruling

Feel free to add your own commentary on the act in a new section on the wiki page or to make points here, but please do not edit my commentary.

As you can see, I think the Court went crazy with the equal protection argument.

[Peter]

Here's my own view.  The Constitution allows us to provide for "to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement."  To me, this allows any type of social insurance and the court interpreted the Consitution too narrowly.  But the real prblem is that the Constitution, by being vague and imprecise, allows them this latitude.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for this disaster.  We wrote that Constitution, we all signed it, and now we get mad when the loopholes get exploited.  Don't get mad, get it fixed.

I completely disagree. The Constitution in this particular clause was neither vague nor imprecise; In fact what caused the Court to have to rule so narrowly was the fact that the Constitution was too precise because it was so specific in listing what was authorised.