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: carranza2 who wrote (116226)	5/25/2005 8:01:12 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793908

The problem is that a lot of rights and freedoms which we took for granted, which are rooted in our traditions, as the latest legal formulation states (a formulation I really like BTW), were never explicitly articulated because they didn't need to be, way back when. As statism grew, it has infringed on these unarticulated traditional rights and freedoms. Hence, the need to protect them has grown. It is the governments, primarily the state governments, which have been guilty. I don't think the right to privacy articulated in Griswald, Roe, ect, really falls under that idea. In any case there are many other areas were out lives have become less private against government snooping, or otherwise face more government control. I don't really think you can push those ideas in to the constitution without twisting it out of all meaning. I don't think that natural rights should be considered incorporated in to the constitution and I think that trying to do so opens up a big can of worms. If the law means what you think it should mean (even if that includes limitations on government to stay within more traditional but unwritten or formally stated limitations) than there is no constitution, and we have no bedrock of rights because the constitution could be changed again by the next judge who has a different idea of traditionally liberties, or (since this traditional liberties clause is not part of the constitution) has some other pet issue that he thinks the constitution can and should (and after his decision effectively does) include. If you can toss in a "traditional liberties" clause (or justification for other clauses you want to toss in), than someone else can toss in a "right to a decent wage" clause and constitutionally mandate a $20/hour minimum wage that would be adjusted for inflation, or any other crazy idea that he cares about as much as you care about reading traditional liberties in to the constitution. Since there used to be no laws against the use of cocaine, would you support that idea that we have a constitutional right to use cocaine? I'm not asking should cocaine be legal, but rather should its use be a constitutional right. As statism grew, it has infringed on these unarticulated traditional rights and freedoms. Hence, the need to protect them has grown. It is the governments, primarily the state governments, which have been guilty. In terms of federal intervention the best solution would be to simple have the feds limited to the actual powers the constitution gives them. And of course this is the democratic check on the government but than you have to convince people to support traditional rights and freedoms. Constitutional amendments are IMO not the answer because doing so requires consent of a majority within a state, though it only takes a certain number of states to enact an amendment. It is thus theoretically possible for a minority vote to enact a constitutional amendment. In theory yes, but considering the supermajority of both the states AND in congress, that is required its not something you really have to worry about. In theory the supreme court could decide that the constitution requires that everyone who has ever posted on Silicon Investor be roasted over a spit but that doesn't mean we should all be afraid that it will happen. And, besides, it is recognition of rights which is the issue Once again constitutional rights are not the same thing as natural rights, or as traditionally exercised liberties. Neither of the later two things is part of the constitution, and if you would like to make them part, be prepared for the fact that they are even more open to interpretation than the constitution is. Give so much latitude to judges and they really become our rulers, is that what you want? Let that happen, and we are a step closer to totalitarianism. IMO the step away from the rule of law that you advocate puts us at for more risk for totalitarianism than originalism ever could. Tim