Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (73766)	9/9/2003 7:34:21 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I believe the extensions were expressly stated in the rendered opinions. Of course but the constitution has an amendment process that doesn't involve judicial decisions changing the meaning of the constitution, however clearly these changes are stated. The "expressly stated" that I was talking about was "expressly stated" in the actual constitution. Clearly, rights against arbitrary search and seizure protect privacy. They do protect privacy but they say nothing about privacy in other areas also being a constitutionally protected right, much less that abortion or any other recently created privacy right is a right. On the other hand, ask yourself if it makes much sense to guarantee citizens the right to practice their religion, as far as federal law is concerned, but to allow the several states to impose restrictions effectively obviating the right. A good argument that the constitution should have been amended to simply and directly apply all the limitations against the federal government. Its a much weaker but not totally unreasonable argument for the idea that the 14th amendment did so in this specific case. It's weaker still as an argument that the 14th amendment extended the bill of rights when and where the SC says it does but not when and where the SC does not. It seems far from clear that saying the state can not infringe on the "privileges and immunities" of citizens means that a state can not establish religion, particularly when the original amendment as stated applied only to the legislative body and the potential infringement in this case was not by a legislative body. I would consider (to the extent that I would use the term about anyone) something of a "Constitutional libertarian", but not how you define the term, "(i.e., libertarians who will defend the right of states to be tyrannical)", but rather in terms of me being fairly libertarian and being a person who strictly interprets the Constitution. I do think the fact that you can change states easier then countries is a good argument for more decisions being made by the state but I don't think the states have any sort of natural right to be tyrannical. I also think that many of the activities prohibited to states by the SC under the doctrine of incorporation, would not if allowed cause me to describe the states as tyrannical. You may as well not have articulated the right in the Constitution. To me, then, Incorporation cures a defect of the Constitution I don't think constitutional defects should be cured by judicial doctrines. and is a reasonable extrapolation from the language of the 14th amendment......... It is at least not a totally outlandish extrapolation from the 14th amendment. However allowing such extrapolations can allow you to twist the Constitution around as they are stacked on top of one another. Tim