The Cato Institute had a comment on the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The writer, Ilya Shapiro, noted this footnote:
But we do not measure the protection the Constitution affords a right by the values of our own times. If contemporary desuetude sufficed to read rights out of the Constitution, then there would be little benefit to a written statement of them. Some may disagree with the decision of the Founders to enshrine a given right in the Constitution. If so, then the people can amend the document. But such amendments are not for the courts to ordain.That makes great sense. If you don't like it, amend it. If you are really brave, call a Constitutional Convention. Hat tip to Instatpundit.
Regards — Cliff
PS: Yes, I didn't recognize "desuetude" either—[des-wi-tood], the state of being no longer used or practiced.
1 comment:
It seems much more politically expedient to get the courts to mandate change based on some arcane legal theory or outright revisionist interpretation of what some long dead statesman meant when he authored language in one of our hallowed documents. The very folks who would represent our interests (while expanding their own) escape our wrath with the simple explanation that "it's the law."
Post a Comment