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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (41532)	3/1/2010 2:41:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, these scholars say. Abortion/privacy rights where essentially a made up constitutional right or collection of rights by the supreme court. But now that they have wide acceptance, yes the privileges or immunities clause could possibly be used to extend them. This approach might enable challenges to arcane state laws that limit economic competition, said Clark M. Neily III of the public interest law firm Institute for Justice. He pointed to a Louisiana law that protects existing florists by requiring a license before someone can arrange or sell flowers. The licensing exam is graded by florists, he noted. "No reasonable person thinks that law has a legitimate purpose," Neily said. But he said, "Right now, once you get a law like this on the books, it's almost impossible to get rid of." I agree with the Institute for Justice, on the policy issue here (and even sent them money once). As for the constitutional issue, well its a borderline case. The "privileges or immunities" clause isn't exactly very specific, which I suppose leaves it legitimately up to decision by courts (rather than courts simply looking for what the constitution says and applying it). I still don't see how it could lead to a "right" to health care or housing. Sure it could be the means that a court uses, but finding such a right in the constitution would be such a stretch beyond the actual constitution, that any court prepared to find one would be essentially inventing it anyway, and if they are willing to do so despite what the constitution says, than they will find some mechanism to do so, they don't particularly need this one.