Judicial Review, Judicial Restraint, Judicial Activism and Rights

[Justin Schwartz]

What's your point? You can read it, so you know that smoking dope is an 
unenumerated right of the people that the Constitution can't deny or 
disparage? That I'm arrogant to suggest we lack the judiciual standards to 
evaluate such claims? You somehow channel the framers, and that's what 
matters? I'm a bit lost here Ian. --jks


>
>
> > 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
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com