Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - this is why it should be easy to remove a sitting judge

smooth · 04-11-2007, 11:05 AM

ubertuber, I didn't claim that a right must be specifically enumerated in the constituation for it to be valid.
EDIT: oh, and I should probably add right here that depending on how "strong" the court considers a right, that's the level of scrutiny they will apply to abridgement of said right. so that means clear consitutional rights are held to the highest standard before determining if curtailing them was appropriate or not (not that it can't ever happen, but whether the interest of the government meets or exceeds the standard for doing so

) /EDIT

I wrote that constructionists believe that.
And, up until today, dksuddeth has been a constructionist.
his every post on gun control hinges on the explicit words of the 2nd amendment, and all of his arguments I can remember defend the proposition that judges should a) not be activist from the bench (finding rights where none are explicitly written) and b) that justices can (and should) infer the constituational framers' original intent.

now, setting that aside to answer you on who holds what rights...that's pretty much been my point in past threads...and it's implied in my responses here: in so far as the federal consitution doesn't say an explicit peep about traveling, the states have a right to control/restrict their own as well as incoming citizens' rights to travel. the courts have held this to be true...and since they've decided that there is a right to travel, they mandate that the state must have a reason that is compelling to their interest before curtailing it. only after all that does a citizen have a personal right to move around as he or she sees fit. and in this particular case, it's an uphill battle to argue that the state doesn't have a compelling interest to control movement during evacuations persuant to a national emergency...

and I'm curious whether anyone went so far as to actually read up on this particular case...because if so, that person will notice that the judge ONLY said nay on the right to travel issue. The two still have a slew of other claims that the judge didn't toss...

04-11-2007, 11:05 AM	#41 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ubertuber, I didn't claim that a right must be specifically enumerated in the constituation for it to be valid. EDIT: oh, and I should probably add right here that depending on how "strong" the court considers a right, that's the level of scrutiny they will apply to abridgement of said right. so that means clear consitutional rights are held to the highest standard before determining if curtailing them was appropriate or not (not that it can't ever happen, but whether the interest of the government meets or exceeds the standard for doing so ) /EDIT I wrote that constructionists believe that. And, up until today, dksuddeth has been a constructionist. his every post on gun control hinges on the explicit words of the 2nd amendment, and all of his arguments I can remember defend the proposition that judges should a) not be activist from the bench (finding rights where none are explicitly written) and b) that justices can (and should) infer the constituational framers' original intent. now, setting that aside to answer you on who holds what rights...that's pretty much been my point in past threads...and it's implied in my responses here: in so far as the federal consitution doesn't say an explicit peep about traveling, the states have a right to control/restrict their own as well as incoming citizens' rights to travel. the courts have held this to be true...and since they've decided that there is a right to travel, they mandate that the state must have a reason that is compelling to their interest before curtailing it. only after all that does a citizen have a personal right to move around as he or she sees fit. and in this particular case, it's an uphill battle to argue that the state doesn't have a compelling interest to control movement during evacuations persuant to a national emergency... and I'm curious whether anyone went so far as to actually read up on this particular case...because if so, that person will notice that the judge ONLY said nay on the right to travel issue. The two still have a slew of other claims that the judge didn't toss... __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 04-11-2007 at 11:11 AM..