WELL: Bomb-throwing question of the week: do we really need a Bill of Rights? Follow me here... if you'd written the constitution still having the ennumerated powers, but in the place of Article I, section 9, you had a clause not unlike the 9th & 10th amendments (e.g. "all rights not specifically given to Congres are reserved to the states and the people"), it seems like you'd miss out on a lot of the grey-area cases no one really likes. In other words, does saying "you can't do this or that" encourage flirting with the boundaries of acceptibility in a way that simply presenting a list of "you can do this, but nothing else" wouldn't?
No specific thoughts myself on this topic as of yet, just looking to see what people's instincts are.
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
No comments:
Post a Comment