3 ms·

Why don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic princi

Why don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic principles. Such as the basic property right of self ownership. Since you own your body, not the State, you may use marijuana. Simple.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Retra 11y ago
You think vague principles like "self ownership" are going to make for consistent legal frameworks? How about we throw out our constitutions and make "be a good person" the law and leave it at that.
rtkwe 11y ago
Then every court case becomes a philosophical argument about the meaning, bound, and effects of those 'few basic principals.' Without a steady legal framework with predictable outcomes large society binds up pretty quick.
PhantomGremlin 11y ago
We actually have such an amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately the Supreme Court treats it like a fucking joke[1]: Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- unabridged 11y ago
  I like to think of it more as a Ninth Amendment issue: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Just because a "right to the free development of personality" isn't specifically listed doesn't mean we don't have it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Retra 11y ago

You think vague principles like "self ownership" are going to make for consistent legal frameworks? How about we throw out our constitutions and make "be a good person" the law and leave it at that.

rtkwe 11y ago

Then every court case becomes a philosophical argument about the meaning, bound, and effects of those 'few basic principals.' Without a steady legal framework with predictable outcomes large society binds up pretty quick.

PhantomGremlin 11y ago

We actually have such an amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Unfortunately the Supreme Court treats it like a fucking joke[1]: Even though the woman grew cannabis strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own cannabis affects the interstate market of cannabis. The theory was that the cannabis could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commerce_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

unabridged 11y ago
I like to think of it more as a Ninth Amendment issue: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Just because a "right to the free development of personality" isn't specifically listed doesn't mean we don't have it.