Re: Devil's Advocate, Revisited
- --- In NationalConstitutionalConvention06@yahoogroups.com, "David
Macko" <dmacko@...> wrote:
> The fact that the Bill of Rights would be up for grabs and subject toThat is part of the "risky business" I brought up in my post, but a
> debate is enough to oppose another Constitutional Convention now.
necessary one in my estimation. The Bill of Rights, as they now exist,
come as an after thought in the structure of the Constitution. Those
enumerated rights are' in part, out of date; and, in part, arachaic in
their wording. I am also less than thrilled with the fact that the
Ninth Amendment is so ill-used by both Democrats and Republicans. As I
see it, the Bill of Rights have themselves been amended over the
years, not by any natural process, but by re-interpretation. In other
words, I see the Bill of Rights under threat without any convention or
other amendment process involved.
> There certainly are weaknesses which should be corrected and whatexpunged.
> you rightly describe as the contamination of case law should be
I'm certainly glad you agree with me in this. The problem here is how
do we expunge bad cases law? The only way that I'm familar with is a
mount of good case law to counter it. And, that really doesn't expunge
the bad case law; it only covers it up like my cats do their potty-box
business. The bad case law remains, and is eventually dredged up to be
used by attorneys to confound other atttorneys and the courts. It is
better, IMO, to lay a new constitutional foundation and labour to
prevent bad case law from being created.
> These actions can be taken without the risks of a ConstitutionalConvention.
> You should recall that the last one started as an attempt to amendthe
> Articles of Confederation.I readily agree in part, but only in part.