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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nigel bates who wrote (57223)	6/29/2009 11:40:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 149317

Its borderline. I'd hardly say that if it isn't judicial activism then the whole concept is meaningless. Its not one of those things that are clearly in the constitution, even with the amendments, but then with - “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, from the 14th amendment, arguably does incorporate the bill of rights. Not so clearly that it would obviously be required, but enough that using it to incorporate the bill of rights would just be interpretation not activism. I suppose coming to the doctrine of incorporation through the due process clause is activism, but then if its supported somewhere else in the constitution, is it really activism?