;') I'm not an attack dog! Well, I don't think so, anyway. I'm no legal or constitutional scholar, but I disagree about the court's duty. The Constitution does not state that one of the jobs of the Supreme Court is to judge laws on their Constitutional basis. By doing so, the Supreme Court is able to set national policies and attitudes. It is able to "interpret" the Constitution to how it sees it. By doing so, it is able to actively create law (Roe v. Wade). And if the Constitution is what ever the Supreme Court says it is, I believe then that we live in somewhat of a benevolent dictatorship. Where the SC has the ability to suspend our rights whenever it wants.
A great example of this might be how the Court would decide on the Second Amendment's use of the term "the people", something which is the basis of argument between the pros and the antis. With one "interpretation", that is that "the people" means the state, the Supreme Court could eliminate what has been accepted as a personal right since before the founding of this country. And you are correct about the directly stated right to privacy. However, there are two ways to see it. One, that the right to privacy comes out of our Fourth Amendment rights. I think that "secure in their persons" quite rightfully implies privacy. The other way to put it is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to invade our privacy, and those powers not innumerated to the federal government our reserved to the people. Also, it is my belief that our rights and freedoms do not come from the Constitution. That the Constitution ennumerated a list of those rights which our forefathers felt were of the utmost importance. And as the Constitution itself states, just because it's not listed there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And whether you believe these rights are innate because they come from God or come from our mere existence (humanism and natural law), they exist because we are human beings and no government can refuse them. Now, they can use force to deny your use of them. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:52 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Bush Wins! It's the Court's enumerated duty to decide what the Constitution says. Doing that is the exact opposite of being activist. Being activist is going beyond the Constitution, such as saying the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy (as in Roe vs. Wade). The Constitution says no such thing. (That said, before I get attacked, let me say that I believe we have a basic human right to privacy and that there should be a Constitutional amendment to that point.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
