I have noticed that contrary to my objection in post +11, there is a view for at least some of the prohibitions in section 9 as being in general form (Although, if I were arguing for that side I still wouldn't exchange that with how the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law" which I just noticed probably because of relying on that the objections in the court opinion would be the most difficult to me). However, it seems to be far from being strong to sufficiently support exclusive interpretation for that meaning given the section in which those prohibitions were mentioned. Why didn't they try to make them more clearly for congress? Why would they do that? To avoid an argument like that in the court opinion? Would such possibility occur to you if you were on the position contrary to what the argument of the court suggests? Also, having they done that wouldn't that open the door in a similar way to arguing that congress must be mentioned explicitly?
No comments:
Post a Comment