The Sausage Emperor Has no Clothes!
Always good to hear from the lunatic fringe of the meat-packing world! Boy, Abe, you sure sound lucid- I think you have read a lot of ultra-conservative rhetoric, but have a fuzzy understanding of Constitutional Law. I''ll respond to your points one by one.
1. The Supreme Court has uconstitutionally usurped its power to legislate. The Supreme Court was never intended to decide what rights are defenendable(sic)and which are not.
Well, Abe, if the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally, it''s the first I''ve heard of it. I''d love to reference some reputable legal scholars who agree with you. But there''s a long, long body of cases, going back to Marbury v. Madison, that gives the Supreme Court the power to decide on the Constitutional validity of state and Federal legislation. When you say that the Supreme Court was never intended to decide which rights were protected, I would respond that the Supreme Court, as well as every other branch of government, does lots of things they weren''t specifically intended to do. However, Article III, section 2[1] of the US Constitution says; The Judical Power shall extend...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party... The power is extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to include overseeing privleges and immunities. I just don''t see how you can say the Court has no right to decide on what liberties should be protected.
2.The court has used this amendment to force many kinds of unpopular legislation upon the people over the years, the most repugnant being a non-existent right to privacy which was the basis for an abortion mandate.
Uh-oh! Right to life rhetoric alert! Do you really think having a right to privacy is repugnant? You don''t like legal abortion, and I understand that. But many Americans do. Just because legislation is unpopular doesn''t make it illegitimate or wrong. If that was true, there would be no laws at all, which I know is what you want, but non-looneys don''t want to live in a lawless society, thanks very much!
3. The ninth amendment does not guarantee any rights in particular, it merely states that there are rights, not specifically enumerated, that exist. The enumerated rights should be enough
to provide for the protection of so-called unenumerated rights, provided that the enumerated
rights are themselves respected.
Yeah, that''s exactly what I said! Except without the so-called part, which I think you added, since MY copy of the Constitution lacks that bit.
I mean, if a right isn''t enumerated, it must be unenumerated, right?
4. Provided that manufacture, sale, and possession of contraceptives was legal, property rights, rights against search and seizure, and the fifth amendment (due process of law) should be enough to protect those that wish to use contraceptives.
Sure, until the Christian Right passes laws requiring infra-red SexPolice cameras in the bedroom, since you say there''s no such thing as a right to privacy! And what''s to prevent the Chrietian Right from passing legislation outlawing the sale, distribution and possesion of birth control, since we have no right to it?
4. The law against contraceptives was constitutional, since any rights not enumerated are reserved to the the states and the people. If popularity for a law against contraceptives was high enough, passing a law against contraceptives is perfectly constitutional.
That logic isn''t quite as solid as one of your Kielbasas, Abe! I''m glad it''s not true, since I could list a litany of unjust laws that were perfectly popular through the ages, from Jim Crow to anti-asian immigration laws, to laws against Jews and Communists, all the way up to the present anti-homosexual witch hunt in the military. Abe for Fuhrer! I mean, uh, president.
6. However, the other specifically enumerated rights previously mentioned would make prosecution difficult at best. Property rights and protection against search and seizure would effectively prohibit the gathering of evidence.
Oh you bet they would! Just tell that to the million or so folks in prison sitting out petty drug-offense sentences!
Do us all a favor, Mr. Froman: Keep making the sausages, and leave criminal defense to the pros!
All the Fourth Amendment guarantees is that the government maust furnish a warrant before busting into your bedroom to search your nightstand for Trojans. Ask a DA how hard it is to get a warrant, (especially in Chicago!) and say that stuff again with a straight face.
Actually, I don''t know what all this has to do with helmet laws- someone said they have a right to not wear a helmet, and I responded. I guess your response indicates you agree- since there is no mention of helmets in the bill of rights, we have no right to go helmetless? Or is your argument that the government has no legitimacy, so all laws are meaningless?
I''m staying away from Chicago!
) I'm glad this reader base isn't as biased ... or is it? 
