|
Roachboy, I agree that informal interpretation of the constitution creates a legal precedent that guides further views of a specific law. I also agree that the current cultural "wars" are making use of the "judicial activism" term in the attempt to reverse long standing legal precedent. I believe any justice of SCOTUS will find himself a minority if he attempts to reverse law based upon precedent.
I have been trying to understand in historical terms vs. the current cultural climate in how SCOTUS has come to interpret the Constitution in ways that are not clearly spelled out by the written document.
For example, I do not understand how the precedent of interstate commerce was legally applied to a farmer that was raising crops for family consumption. You cannot get more "intrastate" than that. But for good or ill, it has become a long standing precedent and will not be reversed.
MoJo, thank you for your post. I have read it several times looking for an answer to my question of privacy rights. What I find there are proscriptions forbidding the states from entering agreements with outside agencies or forming their own monitary system. The relationship of the state with the individual isn't addressed here that I can determine.
Folks, I am just not getting "it" and fear that I am going to be viewed as stubborn if I continue asking the same question. Thanks to all that have attempted to clear up my confusion, but I believe I am a distraction to the discussion at this point.
|