NationStates Jolt Archive

Well recently I've been hearing from some people that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and not allowing the President and Congress to do their jobs properly. This is what I have only heard from some friends who live in the States but what do the rest of you think? Are they complaining about nothing or do they have a valid argument behind their claims?

Do they have any specific reasons behind the claim? How are they too powerful?

I'm not really sure. As a British guy I'm not to clued up on the Supreme court and all its dealings. I only know of a few significant cases such as Roe vs Wade but they claim whatever the Supreme Court decides they will have a huge affect on American society and culture as a whole, and it shouldn't be right that those 9 people have all that power.

I'm not really sure. As a British guy I'm not to clued up on the Supreme court and all its dealings. I only know of a few significant cases such as Roe vs Wade but they claim whatever the Supreme Court decides they will have a huge affect on American society and culture as a whole, and it shouldn't be right that those 9 people have all that power.

Now, the big Supreme Court thing that I imagine has everyone ticked off, is Judicial Review, or something to the effect. Basically, they consider a law, and can declare it to be unconstitutional, in which case... kaput.

The thing is, that's not actually in the Constitution. And there have been a few cases (at least one) where a president has overruled the Supreme Court. (Indian Removal Act- Andrew Jackson)

That help?

It does a little. So basically if someone appeals against a law or something and the current Supreme Court agree with that person, they can strike it down even if goign against the majority? I also heard the only way for a Supreme Court judge to leave is either to retire or be impeached.

Yes, Supreme Court judges serve for life until they retire or are impeached.

I've been doing a bit of research and I'm quite amazed at the ages of some of them. I mean John Stevens is 87 years old. I admire the guy for sticking o the job for as long as he has.

Yes, Supreme Court judges serve for life until they retire or are impeached.

and they are not voted in, but appointed.

oh, if only that was true.

Well recently I've been hearing from some people that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and not allowing the President and Congress to do their jobs properly. This is what I have only heard from some friends who live in the States but what do the rest of you think? Are they complaining about nothing or do they have a valid argument behind their claims?

The Supreme Court's job is to get in the way of the president and congress from doing theirs. The whole idea is that you have a group of people who do not fear reelection seated to strike down mistakes and put the legislators and executives in their place.

It does a little. So basically if someone appeals against a law or something and the current Supreme Court agree with that person, they can strike it down even if goign against the majority?

Yes.

the Supreme Court exists to protect the rights of the minority.

If the majority of people voted in a law (or voted in politicians who wanted a law) that made it illegal to be muslim, for example, the Supreme Court would see that it violated the first amendment of the constitution, and the law would be no more.

The courts, in essence, give a voice to the people who have no say of their own (because in a majority rules country, the minority routinely get trampled)

I also heard the only way for a Supreme Court judge to leave is either to retire or be impeached.

That is correct, and is also a sentiment that I agree with.

Judges are supposed to interpret the law the way it is written, and not in the way that is popular. If Judges were elected, they would have to conform their views to public opinion.

In the example above, the judge who ruled against the popular (though unconstitutional) law above would be gone in the next election, replaced by someone who said what the majority of the people want to hear.

It ensures that rulings are decided by fairness, and not by popular opinion.



(I realize that the above case was a little extreme, but it got the point across)

The Supreme Court's job is to get in the way of the president and congress from doing theirs. The whole idea is that you have a group of people who do not fear reelection seated to strike down mistakes and put the legislators and executives in their place.

Newt Gingrich, in a seminar, once said the American Goverment System works because it doesn't. The Goverment System is designed as such that no ONE person can take over and circumvent the system to take control.

It does a little. So basically if someone appeals against a law or something and the current Supreme Court agree with that person, they can strike it down even if goign against the majority? I also heard the only way for a Supreme Court judge to leave is either to retire or be impeached.

MOre specifically, The Supreme Court can strike down laws if unconsitutional. The SUpreme Court's first and foremost responsibility is to judge cases based on the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Then they judge based on existing law. They cannot rule against exstiing law EXCEPT when such laws would violate their interpretation of the Constitution.

There is a considerable debate as to whether the Constitution gives the Supreme Court such power, but siince they themselves have interpreted the COnstitution so, well... there you go. :p

ANd yes, there have been challenges to that power, but the Supreme Court usually comes ot on top. And I'll tell you, It's done far more good than harm to have that third branch of government in existence. *nod*

Well recently I've been hearing from some people that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and not allowing the President and Congress to do their jobs properly. This is what I have only heard from some friends who live in the States but what do the rest of you think?

On the contrary, it's the weakest of the three branches. Personally, I think it could use some strengthening.

The president is the one who has far exceeded his powers, IMHO.

Are they complaining about nothing or do they have a valid argument behind their claims?

The usual argument is that the courts (note: appellate courts exercise judicial review as well) overstep the boundry between the branches and engag in "legislation". This is usually known as judicial activism. This pejorative is usually vaugly applied to cases where the courts simply rule in a manner in which the claimant disagrees.

Now, the big Supreme Court thing that I imagine has everyone ticked off, is Judicial Review, or something to the effect.

Judicial activism is the usual claim.

Basically, they consider a law, and can declare it to be unconstitutional, in which case... kaput.

Not quite. The USSC doesn't simply consider a law. They consider cases. If a case can be decided on other grounds, they will do so. Judicial review of Constitutionality is a last choice.

The thing is, that's not actually in the Constitution.

That, friends, is the kicker. It isn't expressly in the constitution, however, it is implicit in Articles III and IV.

As well, judicial review goes back almost 200 years before Marbury v. Madison.

Although Marbury v. Madison was the first instance in which a federal court asserted the power of judicial review, the concept was not entirely original. As early as 1610, English Courts, although rarely, exercised a type of judicial review over Acts of Parliament. For instance, in Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a, 114a C.P. (1610), Lord Chief Justice Edward Coke said:

"And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of parliament is against right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge it to be void."
http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/resources/judicialindependence/history.html

It's also laid out explicitly in Hamilton's Federalist No. 78.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_78.html

And there have been a few cases (at least one) where a president has overruled the Supreme Court. (Indian Removal Act- Andrew Jackson)

Overrulled is a bit of an overstatement. Ignored is what happened.

It does a little. So basically if someone appeals against a law or something and the current Supreme Court agree with that person, they can strike it down even if goign against the majority?

That's pretty much it. The laws can't contrevene the constitution. However, the other two branches can end run the courts. Congress can start the amendm,ent process and the president can ignore the courts. The latter can be corrected, but only by congressiaonal censure or impeachment.

I also heard the only way for a Supreme Court judge to leave is either to retire or be impeached.

Indeed. Or death. ;)

the Supreme Court exists to protect the rights of the minority.

Hardly. Notice for instance the SCOTUS recently issued one of its most outrageous rulings in its history, Kelo v. New London, which allows local governments to seize the property of poor people (a minority) and sell it to businesses for development, in stark contrast to the plain language of the constitution. Not to mention all the decisions that upheld slavery, segregation, etc.

Decisions like this are what cause all the greatest cries of judicial activism.

Part of the problem is that court's hard-on for stare decisis, which says that court decisions, once made, should not be overturned and should instead form the basis of future decisions. Now precedent is all well and good, but it is not a substitute for the simple and plain construction of constitutional language. And as a result of stare decisis, once a bad decision is made, it is essentially engraved in stone in perpetuity and used to justify even worse decisions down the line. It is only ever broken in the most outrageous cases, i.e., the one that upheld segregation.

Hardly. Notice for instance the SCOTUS recently issued one of its most outrageous rulings in its history, Kelo v. New London, which allows local governments to seize the property of poor people (a minority) and sell it to businesses for development, in stark contrast to the plain language of the constitution. Not to mention all the decisions that upheld slavery, segregation, etc.

Decisions like this are what cause all the greatest cries of judicial activism.

Part of the problem is that court's hard-on for stare decisis, which says that court decisions, once made, should not be overturned and should instead form the basis of future decisions. Now precedent is all well and good, but it is not a substitute for the simple and plain construction of constitutional language. And as a result of stare decisis, once a bad decision is made, it is essentially engraved in stone in perpetuity and used to justify even worse decisions down the line. It is only ever broken in the most outrageous cases, i.e., the one that upheld segregation.

There are ways to get around stare decisis, but it really is a good idea not to wantonly overturn old decisions, especially when they have become established in society and law.

Your understanding of the Kelo decision seems to be incredibly lacking. The decision had nothing whatsoever to do with poor people - the people challenging this use of eminent domain were not poor, and it was very clear that there were only certain situations in which land could be taken for that type of development at all. The Kelo decision was based heavily in precedent, essentially, the railroads and the taking of land in blighted areas, but does not contradict the "plain language" (LOL) of the constitution. I agree that it was a bad decision, because, as O'Connor pointed out, the precedent dealt with cases in which the current use of the land was harmful, while Kelo did not. However, the court was clear in pointing out that while their ruling states that current law allows the use of eminent domain in such a case, the legislature can (and, reading it, the justices seemed to feel that they should) further restrict it.

In the end, the Kelo decision is much more narrow than people seem to think. And to call it "judicial activism" is ridiculous. It was incredibly clear that the justices did not like this particular use of emininent domain, and they made a point of pointing out that the legislature could further restrict the power. They weren't trying to alter the law to fit their viewpoints. Instead, they found that the law allows this type of thing, and needs to be changed if we wish to prevent it. Interestingly enough, several state legislatures did just that in the last election.

Hardly. Notice for instance the SCOTUS recently issued one of its most outrageous rulings in its history, Kelo v. New London, which allows local governments to seize the property of poor people (a minority) and sell it to businesses for development, in stark contrast to the plain language of the constitution. Not to mention all the decisions that upheld slavery, segregation, etc.

Decisions like this are what cause all the greatest cries of judicial activism.

Part of the problem is that court's hard-on for stare decisis, which says that court decisions, once made, should not be overturned and should instead form the basis of future decisions. Now precedent is all well and good, but it is not a substitute for the simple and plain construction of constitutional language. And as a result of stare decisis, once a bad decision is made, it is essentially engraved in stone in perpetuity and used to justify even worse decisions down the line. It is only ever broken in the most outrageous cases, i.e., the one that upheld segregation.

This is ridiculous. You are wrong -- even plain backwards -- on several levels.

I won't repeat the good points by Daistallia and others explaining why our system of checks and balances only works if the Court exercises the time-honored tradition of judicial review. Your points don't really go to this issue and it need not be further addresssed until someone comes up with a more specific argument against a healthy judiciary.

Dem1 has already corrected you to some degree about your misunderstanding of the Kelo decision. As this is a side issue, I won't go there. (I will note that those who cite Kelo as the ultimate bad decision thereby demonstrate their own ignorance of the law.)

What is bizarre is you claim that Kelo is a case of "judicial activism."
As Dem1 noted, in Kelo, the Court said it didn't like the use of eminent domain, but it deferred to the decisions of the executive and legislative branches that the proposed taking was for the public good. The Supreme Court did not grab power, but rather said the issue was left to the other branches. This is the opposite of what could be called "judicial activism."

Similarly bizarre is your claim the following precedent is judicial activism. Usually, the opposite claim is made. Relying on stare decisis, the Court seeks to decide cases as narrowly as possible and to respect its past decisions. Stare decisis gives stability and continuity over the law. The alternative is more active Court that can change its mind from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour without concern for consistence. Such willy-nilly jurisprudence would hardly show judicial restraint.

Finally, you are simply wrong in asserting that the Court does not reverse precedents. The Court does reverse itself. It just does not do so lightly or frequently. More importantly, the Court always is willing to reconsider, rather than simply follow precedent. You would hardly say our system was better if the Court more frequently changed its mind, now would you?

You are correct that the Court has not always worked perfectly, always protected oppressed minorities, or always made the right decision. So what. Our government is not perfect. As James Madison explained in the 51st Federalist Paper:
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

However, the court was clear in pointing out that while their ruling states that current law allows the use of eminent domain in such a case, the legislature can (and, reading it, the justices seemed to feel that they should) further restrict it.

In the end, the Kelo decision is much more narrow than people seem to think. And to call it "judicial activism" is ridiculous. It was incredibly clear that the justices did not like this particular use of emininent domain, and they made a point of pointing out that the legislature could further restrict the power. They weren't trying to alter the law to fit their viewpoints. Instead, they found that the law allows this type of thing, and needs to be changed if we wish to prevent it. Interestingly enough, several state legislatures did just that in the last election.

Indeed - 10 states did so, bringing the number to 34.

BTW, did you read the Economist's editorial on the subject (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8322916)? Good stuff.

Cat-Tribe, nothing I can add - well done.

However, the court was clear in pointing out that while their ruling states that current law allows the use of eminent domain in such a case, the legislature can (and, reading it, the justices seemed to feel that they should) further restrict it.

In the end, the Kelo decision is much more narrow than people seem to think. And to call it "judicial activism" is ridiculous. It was incredibly clear that the justices did not like this particular use of emininent domain, and they made a point of pointing out that the legislature could further restrict the power. They weren't trying to alter the law to fit their viewpoints. Instead, they found that the law allows this type of thing, and needs to be changed if we wish to prevent it. Interestingly enough, several state legislatures did just that in the last election.

Indeed - 10 states did so, bringing the number to 34.

BTW, did you read the Economist's editorial on the subject (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8322916)? Good stuff.

Cat-Tribe, nothing I can add - well done.

There certainly are examples of judicial activism is US history. Riggs v. Palmer is a good example.

Overrulled is a bit of an overstatement. Ignored is what happened.


Jackson said something along the lines of "you enforce it". He should have been impeached for refusing to do his duties as executive.

The Supreme Court is both good and bad. They may be a good check on the power of the legislature and the executive branch, but they also manipulate vague wording to fit their views (cough, Warren Court, cough), and the idea of "judicial precedent" is just one big mess.

An example of the "good" Supreme Court: Gideon v. Cochran, in which it was ruled that all defendants in criminal cases are guaranteed the right to an attorney, even if they cannot afford one's services. This was based on expressed language in the sixth amendment of the Constitution.

An example of the "bad": Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that legislatures may not mandate a moment of silence in public schools due to the fact that *gasp* students and teachers may engage in prayer during this time! This was based on the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." How that went as far as establishing an official state religion is beyond me, but alas, that's the Supreme Court for you. Up and down. Very down.

There certainly are examples of judicial activism is US history. Riggs v. Palmer is a good example.

While there are, they are not nearly as common as the anti-Judiciary would have it.

Jackson said something along the lines of "you enforce it". He should have been impeached for refusing to do his duties as executive.

Indeed he should have been subjected to some congressional censure. One of the biggest problems in the republic is that congress has slowly but surely forfeited some of it's powers to the president.The War Powers Act and the outragious stream of signing statements by the current office holder are some more recent occurances.

An example of the "bad": Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that legislatures may not mandate a moment of silence in public schools due to the fact that *gasp* students and teachers may engage in prayer during this time! This was based on the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." How that went as far as establishing an official state religion is beyond me, but alas, that's the Supreme Court for you. Up and down. Very down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

Engel v. Vitale had to do with an actual official school prayer that was recited at the beginning of the school day, not a moment of silence.

Meanwhile, Wallace v. Jaffrey, which did deal with a "moment of silence" was not decided based on what may or may not happen during the silence. It was decided based on the fact that the moment of silence had no secular purpose - it was being enacted for religious reasons. The test the court generally uses to determine the applicability of the 1st amendment to a given statute looks at both the purpose of the law and the results of the law. If the purpose of the law is to enforce or promote a religion or religion(s), it is establishment. In this case, the court found that the purpose of the law was to promote religion.

While there are, they are not nearly as common as the anti-Judiciary would have it.
I disagree. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo v. New London, Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, on and on...

I disagree. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo v. New London, Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, on and on...

Roe v. Wade cannot be considered activism in any sense. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not activism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

Engel v. Vitale had to do with an actual official school prayer that was recited at the beginning of the school day, not a moment of silence.

Meanwhile, Wallace v. Jaffrey, which did deal with a "moment of silence" was not decided based on what may or may not happen during the silence. It was decided based on the fact that the moment of silence had no secular purpose - it was being enacted for religious reasons. The test the court generally uses to determine the applicability of the 1st amendment to a given statute looks at both the purpose of the law and the results of the law. If the purpose of the law is to enforce or promote a religion or religion(s), it is establishment. In this case, the court found that the purpose of the law was to promote religion.

I just realized my mistake and was about to correct it. My bad.

I found the ruling in Jaffree to be ludicrous. The law allowed students to express their religious beliefs privately to themselves, but this is no way promotes religion to atheist students, nor does it establish any sort of religious guidelines. The law only recognized that many students have religious beliefs and allowed a moment for them to engage in their religious practices in school. It was neither required nor encouraged to those who did not engage in prayer regularly.

Roe v. Wade cannot be considered activism in any sense. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not activism.

And where, pray tell, is abortion or a "general right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

An example of the "bad": Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that legislatures may not mandate a moment of silence in public schools due to the fact that *gasp* students and teachers may engage in prayer during this time! This was based on the first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..." How that went as far as establishing an official state religion is beyond me, but alas, that's the Supreme Court for you. Up and down. Very down.

Not quite. The ruling was that a state mandated prayer was not allowed.

U.S. Supreme Court
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
370 U.S. 421

ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 468.
Argued April 3, 1962.
Decided June 25, 1962.

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.

The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and [370 U.S. 421, 423] legislative powers over the State's public school system. 1 These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program."

Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - a command which was "made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution." The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection. 2 [370 U.S. 421, 424] We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 3

It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an [370 U.S. 421, 434] establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of that history many people have devoutly believed that "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose. 20 And there were men of this same faith in the [370 U.S. 421, 435] power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance. 21 [370 U.S. 421, 436]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421

I disagree. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo v. New London, Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, on and on...

So, "judicial activism" in your vocabulary means, "any decision I don't personally agree with"??


I found the ruling in Jaffree to be ludicrous. The law allowed students to express their religious beliefs privately to themselves, but this is no way promotes religion to atheist students, nor does it establish any sort of religious guidelines. ]The law only recognized that many students have religious beliefs and allowed a moment for them to engage in their religious practices in school.

It quite obviously promotes religion. If the purpose was to give students time to be religious, then the government is giving the impression that being religious is a good thing - in other words, advocating religion.

It was neither required nor encouraged to those who did not engage in prayer regularly.

Really? So those students were allowed to do whatever they wanted during the minute or so mandated? They would have been allowed to continue a conversation, read a book, or work on homework? ((Note: I have been at a school with a similar "moment of silence" and I can tell you that none of these things were allowed.)) Students who did not wish to pray were still required to participate in the moment of silence allotted for prayer.


And where, pray tell, is abortion or a "general right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

If you want every right to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution, you're going to lose many, many legally recognized rights. I'm not sure you want to go down that road.

And where, pray tell, is abortion or a "general right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

9th Amendment.

And where, pray tell, is abortion or a "general right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

Let's see, the fourth amendments protections against search and seizure. The fifth amendment and its due process of law. The ninth amendments enumerated rights (abortion was common and legal until Victorian times). The 14th amendments guaruntee of equal protections of the law. The fact that not until the first trimester is a zygote considered a fetus.

Plenty of reasons.

Not quite. The ruling was that a state mandated prayer was not allowed.







http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421

See my post above. Thank you.

*tries to read Read My Mind's mind*
Nope, nothing there :p

While there are, they are not nearly as common as the anti-Judiciary would have it.
But that decisions like Riggs v. Palmer can occur is evidence that the system is abuseable to the point of being broken.

The legal system simply should not allow that sort of activism. And Riggs v. Palmer was in 1889 - it's not like this happened recently.

I just realized my mistake and was about to correct it. My bad.

Heh. Caught in the turn around. ;)

I found the ruling in Jaffree to be ludicrous. The law allowed students to express their religious beliefs privately to themselves, but this is no way promotes religion to atheist students, nor does it establish any sort of religious guidelines. The law only recognized that many students have religious beliefs and allowed a moment for them to engage in their religious practices in school. It was neither required nor encouraged to those who did not engage in prayer regularly.

The minute of silence is permissible and has been upheld, if it serves a secular function.

Permissible "Minute of Silence"

During the 1980s, school prayer advocates were in search of new approaches that might prove constitutional. The so-called moment of silence has proven the most successful strategy, despite an early setback in which Alabama's requirement that school children be required to observe a moment of silence each day was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffrey (1985).

However, states subsequently crafted laws that did survive constitutional review. One example is Virginia's minute of silence law, which requires children to begin the school day with a minute to "meditate, pray or engage in silent activity." In July 2001, a panel of the 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the law, noting that it " introduced at most a minor and nonintrusive accommodation of religion" and, because it allowed any type of silent reflection, served both religious and secular interests. The U. S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in the case, thus upholding Virginia's law. Legal observers predicted the law's success would lead to more such legislation in other states; as many as 18 states already permit moments of silence under law.
http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/school-prayer-pledge-allegiance

And where, pray tell, is abortion or a "general right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution?

I'm off to a basketball game, so I'll let someone else educate you here.

No system is perfect, but I'd certainly prefer a system based on stare decisis and judicial interpretation, flawed as that can sometimes be, to a system where idiot politicians are given free reign. The judiciary provides a system of checks and balances that COMPLIMENT the democratic system. Whining about activist judges ignores the fact that there are just as many positivist judges out there...more, usually, than those who feel it is their job to MAKE laws. And we need both kinds, frankly.

Let's see, the fourth amendments protections against search and seizure. The fifth amendment and its due process of law. The ninth amendments enumerated rights (abortion was common and legal until Victorian times). The 14th amendments guaruntee of equal protections of the law. The fact that not until the first trimester is a zygote considered a fetus.

Plenty of reasons.
Wrong. The fourth amendment discusses the government needing probable cause and a court order to conduct searches or seizures. This clearly involves criminal cases where the government sees it necessary to search and seize property. It has nothing to do with abortion/general privacy rights. Theoretically, going by your logic, in the context of this amendment, the government could stop a woman from having an abortion by issuing a warrant to "seize" her body, if an anti-abortion law is on the books.

The fifth amendent's due process clause:
...life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor...
This deals with one being given one's full rights in the event of a criminal case. This is evidenced by the language in and of itself, as well as the fact that the words "criminal case" are mentioned right alongside it in the same semi-colon embedded section.

9th Amendment.
The ninth amendment reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This simply states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution may not be used to expand government power or deny rights to the people. This has nothing to do with a general right to privacy or abortion, once again.

The fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause reads:
...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This simply states that all people must be equally protected by the law. What the hell does that have to do with privacy or abortion?

But that decisions like Riggs v. Palmer can occur is evidence that the system is abuseable to the point of being broken.

The legal system simply should not allow that sort of activism. And Riggs v. Palmer was in 1889 - it's not like this happened recently.

And when the streets are paved with gold, everyone is nice to each other, and chocolate rains from the sky.....

Seriously, our legal system is always going to be reliant upon human beings. As such, it will always be at least somewhat flawed. All in all, it isn't a bad system.

Meanwhile, inheritance and such has always been an odd portion of the law - based greatly in common law, rather than solely in written law.


The ninth amendment reads:
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This simply states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution may not be used to expand government power or deny rights to the people. This has nothing to do with a general right to privacy or abortion, once again.

of course it does. It states that there are rights retained by the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The courts are tasked with interpretation of the law, and thus can determine what said rights are. The right to privacy has been determined to be such a right - one not specifically enumerated, but protected nonetheless.

Wrong. The fourth amendment discusses the government needing probable cause and a court order to conduct searches or seizures.


...which would strongly imply the existence of a right to privacy. If one had no right to privacy, why would the government need probable cause to search your house? Without a right to privacy, what cause would you have to object to government agents randomly showing up at your door and announcing that you need to let them peek under your bed and read your diary?


The ninth amendment reads:

This simply states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution may not be used to expand government power or deny rights to the people. This has nothing to do with a general right to privacy or abortion, once again.


How on earth does an amendment stating that people have rights which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution have nothing to do with the existence of a right which is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Wrong. The fourth amendment discusses the government needing probable cause and a court order to conduct searches or seizures. This clearly involves criminal cases where the government sees it necessary to search and seize property. It has nothing to do with abortion/general privacy rights. Theoretically, going by your logic, in the context of this amendment, the government could stop a woman from having an abortion by issuing a warrant to "seize" her body, if an anti-abortion law is on the books.

Let's look at what the 4th amendment implies here. If the state must get a warrant to search someone's private home or private possessions, that nescesarily implies a right of privacy that the government can only breach in specific circumstances.

The fifth amendent's due process clause:

This deals with one being given one's full rights in the event of a criminal case. This is evidenced by the language in and of itself, as well as the fact that the words "criminal case" are mentioned right alongside it in the same semi-colon embedded section.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Thus, there can be no infringement of a woman's right to her body (arguably a fundamental precedent for having any rights) without some legitimate state interest. With abortion, there is no legitimate state interest.

The ninth amendment reads:

This simply states that the rights enumerated in the Constitution may not be used to expand government power or deny rights to the people. This has nothing to do with a general right to privacy or abortion, once again.

It has long been held that people have a right to privacy, long before the constitution was ratified. Furthermore, abortion was not criminalized until the Victorian era. It can be considered a right retained by the people.

The fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause reads:

This simply states that all people must be equally protected by the law. What the hell does that have to do with privacy or abortion?

Everything. Only a woman can get pregnant. Allowing anyone but that woman to decide if she wants to have a child is placing a substantial burden on women that is not placed on men. A prohibition of abortion, which neither kills a living person (say what you want, but until the end of the first trimester, the zygote is not even a fetus yet), nor serves any legitimate state interest, fails yet again in constitutionality because it enforces the subservience of women.

of course it does. It states that there are rights retained by the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The courts are tasked with interpretation of the law, and thus can determine what said rights are. The right to privacy has been determined to be such a right - one not specifically enumerated, but protected nonetheless.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You're clearly misinterpreting the ninth amendment here. As it is evidenced by the amendment's text above, the language speaks of prohibiting the government from using specific enumerated rights in the Constitution to conversely deny people other rights. This has nothing to do with the Court's declaration that abortion is a guaranteed constituional right.

...which would strongly imply the existence of a right to privacy. If one had no right to privacy, why would the government need probable cause to search your house? Without a right to privacy, what cause would you have to object to government agents randomly showing up at your door and announcing that you need to let them peek under your bed and read your diary?



How on earth does an amendment stating that people have rights which are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution have nothing to do with the existence of a right which is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Let's look at what the 4th amendment implies here. If the state must get a warrant to search someone's private home or private possessions, that nescesarily implies a right of privacy that the government can only breach in specific circumstances.





Thus, there can be no infringement of a woman's right to her body (arguably a fundamental precedent for having any rights) without some legitimate state interest. With abortion, there is no legitimate state interest.



It has long been held that people have a right to privacy, long before the constitution was ratified. Furthermore, abortion was not criminalized until the Victorian era. It can be considered a right retained by the people.



Everything. Only a woman can get pregnant. Allowing anyone but that woman to decide if she wants to have a child is placing a substantial burden on women that is not placed on men. A prohibition of abortion, which neither kills a living person (say what you want, but until the end of the first trimester, the zygote is not even a fetus yet), nor serves any legitimate state interest, fails yet again in constitutionality because it enforces the subservience of women.

Exactly what I expected. More mumbo jumbo about "implications" of a right to privacy. The Constitution lays out specific areas of rights that are to be interpreted vaguely, yes. But to then vaguely interpret the existence of an amendment and the possible implications behind its existence is ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous for the Courts to decide when the unborn child in question is somehow suddenly worthy of protection which was previously, by Constitutional law, unafforded to them. Where is the "viability" clause interpreted? The sixth amendment's right to an attorney?

Exactly what I expected. More mumbo jumbo about "implications" of a right to privacy. The Constitution lays out specific areas of rights that are to be interpreted vaguely, yes. But to then vaguely interpret the existence of an amendment and the possible implications behind its existence is ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous for the Courts to decide when the unborn child in question is somehow suddenly worthy of protection which was previously, by Constitutional law, unafforded to them. Where is the "viability" clause interpreted? The sixth amendment's right to an attorney?

Viability? It has to do with medical science's definition of when life begins!!

This implications are neither ludicrous nor outside of the scope of the Constitution's protections.

You're clearly misinterpreting the ninth amendment here. As it is evidenced by the amendment's text above, the language speaks of prohibiting the government from using specific enumerated rights in the Constitution to conversely deny people other rights.
The only one misinterpreting it is you. The 9th Amendment has been interpreted by every single U.S. court ever as meaning that, just because a right was not mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that people do not have that right.

Viability? It has to do with medical science's definition of when life begins!!

This implications are neither ludicrous nor outside of the scope of the Constitution's protections.
And yet, the question of when life begins is one hotly debated on moral, scientific, and religious levels. The Constitution, however, is strangely silent on the matter.

Yes, they are. The belief in such implications is the product of a very adamant movement to protect abortion rights that, unfortunately, has led to very intelligent people engaging in odd practices of twisted logic akin to "doublethink."

The only one misinterpreting it is you. The 9th Amendment has been interpreted by every single U.S. court ever as meaning that, just because a right was not mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that people do not have that right.

I'd love to see your sources on that. The ninth amendment was not even mentioned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

And yet, the question of when life begins is one hotly debated on moral, scientific, and religious levels. The Constitution, however, is strangely silent on the matter.

Yes, they are. The belief in such implications is the product of a very adamant movement to protect abortion rights that, unfortunately, has led to very intelligent people engaging in odd practices of twisted logic akin to "doublethink."

The debate exists not within these fields, but between science and religion. I'm sorry, but I'm going with medical science. A dusty 4000 year old book of dubious authenticity doesn't cut it for me.

Doublethink? What about those so-called patriotic pro-life groups who say they are commited to freedom and liberty, yet systematically try to undo years of progress in womyn's rights? Or those same pro-life groups that oppose abortion but also oppose birth control? Or sex education, for that matter?

There certainly are examples of judicial activism is US history. Riggs v. Palmer is a good example.

The fact that you have to cite an 1889 New York state of appeals case as an exception rather proves the rule that "judicial activism" is far from rampant.

Moreover, it is rather hard to argue the decision in Riggs -- that a murderer cannot benefit from the estate of the murdered -- is particularly outrageous. That such extreme facts forced a court to skew ever so slightly from a strict construction of the law by applying simple logic and decency is hardly evidence of a rogue judiciary.

I disagree. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kelo v. New London, Engel v. Vitale, Wallace v. Jaffree, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, on and on...

LOL.

Merely listing these cases does little to prove any point.

So these are a handful of the thousands of SCOTUS decisions to which you object. So what? Are they all cases of judicial activism? NO. Are they all wrongly decided? NO.

Your going to have to stop babbling and start contributing attual intelligence to this decision.

(By the way, I find it hilarlious that you pointed to the Warren Court earlier, but the examples you know give of "judicial activism" cases contain only 1 Warren Court decision.)

It's only activism if you disagree with it.

I just realized my mistake and was about to correct it. My bad.

I found the ruling in Jaffree to be ludicrous. The law allowed students to express their religious beliefs privately to themselves, but this is no way promotes religion to atheist students, nor does it establish any sort of religious guidelines. The law only recognized that many students have religious beliefs and allowed a moment for them to engage in their religious practices in school. It was neither required nor encouraged to those who did not engage in prayer regularly.

I find your warped construction of the Jaffree ruling to be absurd. You simply ignore the actual issues in the case and instead go off on populist demogogary.

As you noted earlier, the Constitution prohibits anything resembling an establishment of religion. Here we had a law with an expressly religious purpose only and with no secular pupose whatsoever. As the Court noted the statute was not merely a permissible accomodation of religion, because, prior to its enactment, there was no governmnetl practice impeding students from silently praying for one minute at the beginning of school. What was missing -- and Alabama tried improperly to provide -- was state endorsement and promotion of religion and a particular religious practice.

Go read the actual case. It makes ample sense. You attempt to misconstrue the case shows either a lack of understand or a lack of intellectual honesty.

It's only activism if you disagree with it.

QFT

I sure have missed seeing Cat-Tribe tear people apart. A rare treat these days.

The fact that you have to cite an 1889 New York state of appeals case as an exception rather proves the rule that "judicial activism" is far from rampant.

Moreover, it is rather hard to argue the decision in Riggs -- that a murderer cannot benefit from the estate of the murdered -- is particularly outrageous. That such extreme facts forced a court to skew ever so slightly from a strict construction of the law by applying simple logic and decency is hardly evidence of a rogue judiciary.

I agree with you here, but I do see his point.

The court, in that case (as far as I can tell: having only read the wiki on it) said basically "the law doesn't have a case for this, but if it did, I'm sure this is what it would be". And I agree with him that that is not the purpose of the judiciary.

of course, they came to a decision that no sane person would disagree with.

I think a better option in their case would be to (as part of the sentence) confiscate the inherited property and return it to the (rest) of the victim's family.

same outcome, but instead of reinterpreting the law, they simply mirror the outcome of it by adjusting the sentence.

I'm not really sure. As a British guy I'm not to clued up on the Supreme court and all its dealings. I only know of a few significant cases such as Roe vs Wade but they claim whatever the Supreme Court decides they will have a huge affect on American society and culture as a whole, and it shouldn't be right that those 9 people have all that power.

The President has a lot of power, and there's only one of him.

The Supreme Court were weren't great in the 1930s, when they declared Roosevelt's New Deal illegal. Other than that, I don't know a lot.

I'd love to see your sources on that. The ninth amendment was not even mentioned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That's an excellent starting place. :)

I sure have missed seeing Cat-Tribe tear people apart. A rare treat these days.

Indeed. Hardly seems fair, does it? :)

The fact that you have to cite an 1889 New York state of appeals case as an exception rather proves the rule that "judicial activism" is far from rampant.

Moreover, it is rather hard to argue the decision in Riggs -- that a murderer cannot benefit from the estate of the murdered -- is particularly outrageous. That such extreme facts forced a court to skew ever so slightly from a strict construction of the law by applying simple logic and decency is hardly evidence of a rogue judiciary.
I chose Riggs v. Palmer because it's an excellent example of judicial activism. The relevant statute was perfectly clear - there was no law at all that said Elmer should not inherit his grandfather's estate. That his cousin (Mrs. Riggs) disagreed was immaterial - she had no standing in law. And yet, the court decided that it simply wasn't fair that Elmer Palmer inherit his grandfather's estate.

It's this application of broad principles, unsupported by statute, that I deem unacceptable activism. As long as Riggs v. Palmer is possible, the system is exploitable to the point of losing prescriptive force (since people are unable to deem in advance what the legal consequences of their actions will be). The minority opinion in Riggs is an excellent description of what's wrong with the decision.

Su...preme...court...to...power...ful...

"THE SUPREME COURT IS OPERATING IN A PRE-9/11 MINDSET. LET'S IGNORE THEM BITCHEZ"

-George W. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That's an excellent starting place. :)

Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." [5] Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):

The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.
Although the Roe activists may see the ninth amendment in black and white terms, there is still debate over its interpretation, which this article clearly shows.

The way I view the courts is in much the same way Scalia does, disregarding the idea of a "living Constitution" and vague interpretations in lieu of a more literal reading of the document. Although I remain pro-choice, pro-privacy rights, and against government establishments of religion, I believe that the courts should only play a role in determining the outcome of these issues within the boundaries of a literal interpreation of the Constitution. This is why I am often frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court rules on certain cases, although the outcomes of these cases (abortion rights, sexual freedom and privacy, etc.) may be to my liking.

Well recently I've been hearing from some people that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and not allowing the President and Congress to do their jobs properly. This is what I have only heard from some friends who live in the States but what do the rest of you think? Are they complaining about nothing or do they have a valid argument behind their claims?

Are you kidding?

Claims that the judiciary acts as a "super-legislature" or "super-executive" are at least thirty years old, not "recent." More importantly, in the last five years or so the discussion among political scientists has begun to shift: in the wake of legislation and executive decisions following 9/11 (relating especially to domestic surveillance and the detention of aliens and terror suspects), we are starting to talk more about the Executive trying to claim power as a "super-judiciary."

In other words, your attack on the judiciary is too late. Now we should be worried about another branch.

Although the Roe activists may see the ninth amendment in black and white terms, there is still debate over its interpretation, which this article clearly shows.

The way I view the courts is in much the same way Scalia does, disregarding the idea of a "living Constitution" and vague interpretations in lieu of a more literal reading of the document. Although I remain pro-choice, pro-privacy rights, and against government establishments of religion, I believe that the courts should only play a role in determining the outcome of these issues within the boundaries of a literal interpreation of the Constitution. This is why I am often frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court rules on certain cases, although the outcomes of these cases (abortion rights, sexual freedom and privacy, etc.) may be to my liking.

The courts were granted the power to interpret the Constitution - that is within their power.

Now, if the 9th Amendment cannot be interpreted as protecting certain rights, then it is utterly useless and has no place in the Constitution at all. What you are essentially saying is, "There are certain rights reserved to the people - rights that neither the state government nor the federal government can supercede - but it doesn't really matter, because there is absolutely no way to determine what those are or enforce them. As such, the government can infringe all it likes...."

Meanwhile, if the Constitution is not a living document, it becomes a useless document. As society changes, the law must change with it. By strict interpretation standards - at least as Scalia has argued them - the government could censor and control all media broadcast on film or television. Why? Because there was no film or television when the Constitution was written. Therefore, the first amendment cannot apply to film or television. Scalia has argued this.

Another of his wonderful arguments was: The courts cannot determine morality. The federal government cannot determine morality. (Yeah, we're with you here Scalia...) That is up to the states. (HUH!?!?! :headbang: ) Frankly, I don't put much stock in Scalia.

Although the Roe activists may see the ninth amendment in black and white terms, there is still debate over its interpretation, which this article clearly shows.

The way I view the courts is in much the same way Scalia does, disregarding the idea of a "living Constitution" and vague interpretations in lieu of a more literal reading of the document. Although I remain pro-choice, pro-privacy rights, and against government establishments of religion, I believe that the courts should only play a role in determining the outcome of these issues within the boundaries of a literal interpreation of the Constitution. This is why I am often frustrated with the way that the Supreme Court rules on certain cases, although the outcomes of these cases (abortion rights, sexual freedom and privacy, etc.) may be to my liking.

You are wrong on so many levels that I can't be bothered to point them all out.

So let's just take a few random ones:

1. The Constitution is not meant to be read as a stale and rigid statute-book. It deliberately includes terms and phrases like "liberty," "due process," "establishment of religion," that require interpretation and application. The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment, limits the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

2. The Ninth Amendment is an express indication by the Founders that they did not intend the close-ended approach to rights that you appear to favor.

3. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect "liberty" and "due process of law." These are not hollow words, but rather refer to fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. Consider this quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

4. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right,see, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/381/479.html), 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution, see, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ). Both rights are protected as liberties under the Due Process Clause.

5. Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

6. Here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that have been held to be protected by the Constitution and are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

7. Scalia, really? You must be joking.

~snip~

Holy crap, it's Cat-Tribe, the amazing. Damn good to see someone whom is well versed in law(As you are a lawyer, no?) show up.

My God, I haven't seen a post of yours in ages, and was wondering what had happened to ya.