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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (84897)	11/8/2004 5:42:20 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793822

my own view lies with those like Bork who are described as strict constructionists. When I was in law school, Bork gave a speech at my school. During the question-answer session, I asked him whether he could find a right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution. I mentioned the age old right of the common citizen to be able to refuse even a king from entering his hovel, be it ever so mean (humble), without permission (or a warrant). He hemmed and hawed but did not really give me an answer yea or nay.

To: Bridge Player who wrote (84897)	11/8/2004 6:07:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793822

With respect to the constitution, it occurs to me that the issue of whether that document incorporates within it any "unarticulated rights", or indeed should be so interpreted, quite possibly underlies a fundamental difference between so-called "social liberals" and "social conservatives". I'm not so sure about that. Social conservatives rely a lot on natural law as a basis for interpretation. Natural law is unarticulated, as well. I think everyone reads his own moral sense into the Constitution in some fashion. Just different moral emphasis. Even strict constructionists are reading something into it in a way by insisting on articulation when it's not clear that that was intended.