----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Judicial Review, Judicial Restraint, Judicial Activism and Rights
> Yeah, Brad, and what does _that_ mean? The only way to tell is to
have the
> courts interpret it, to develop a body of precedent articulating the
meaning
> of the terms in the context of concrete cases, to develop standards
for
> applying the tests so that one can make guesses about the legal
consequences
> of one's actions in light of those tests, and so forth. This hasn't
been
> done. Let me tell you that if you come into court with a 9A argument
to
> attack a piece of legislation or a government action as "denying or
> disparaging" some unenumerated right, you will be nonsuited, and
possibly,
> if the judge is feeling cranky, sanctioned for making a frivolous
argument.
> --jks
============
Would that be how they would have treated those who wrote the
amendment? Would they have locked up George and Martha W. for growing
and smoking hemp at Mt. Vernon, since that was an unenumerated right
until 1937? Sounds like you're catching that arrogant lawyer virus
that's been fucking with liberty since time immemorial.
Ian