The linked article is pretty thin regarding the legal rationale for the ruling. A US paper giving a one page summary might be similarly superficial. Yet, I se

The linked article is pretty thin regarding the legal rationale for the ruling. A US paper giving a one page summary might be similarly superficial. Yet, I see your point. Along the lines you suggest, US Constitutional jurisprudence has many secondary doctrines that have been established over the years. One illustration (relevant if this were an American case) is the notion of "strict scrutiny" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). Basically, this is a more refined interpretation of the Constitution in cases where individual rights are being traded off against legislative power. I wonder if someone could link to a more refined interpretation of this case?