From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 02:17:25 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote
> When the court said there was a right to birth control,
> for example, what it said is that /no/ legislative body
> at any level has the right to interfere with individual
> choice in that area. That not the court usurping power--
> that's the court telling the legislature that they can't.
and Russell Blackford writes
> Yes, [Crocker's] is the correct analysis. Whether such individual
> rights really can be read into the US constitution is another
> thing. Assuming this is legitimate, however, a body such as
> a Supreme Court is the appropriate institution to protect them.
(we have *pairs* of Lee's, Russell's, Alex's, Damien's, Jef's
(though thankfully only one Spike (yet he must compete with the
book of the same name)), all of which makes first name familiarity
a thing of the past. Let's hope that we don't have to start
indexing by DOB or national identity cards.) :-)
I agree that there is force in these arguments, and in
more ways that one.
For me, the paradox perhaps relates to sovereignty. I do
note that before 1865, the U.S. was often referred to as
"these United States", and seldom as such afterward. What
level of individual rights, then, is to be understood as
guaranteed by the American constitution?
Russell referred to the uncertainty regarding "whether such
rights can be read into the constitution" or not, and this
is the eternal debate that perhaps separates even many
otherwise unanimous libertarians.
The question is obviously linked to the related one of
sovereignty for clear historical reasons. Yet another
argument I will advance now is that in the case of the
U.S. perceptible gain is often obtained by running 50
experiments in parallel. Why *not* allow more freedom
for states to do as they wish (within limits of course)?
If one focuses on his or her locality, what exactly are
the laws are a thousand miles should be of little
importance. "Think locally, act locally" say I.
Then there is the argument I made that was not addressed,
but which was referred to by Ron. Namely the sincere
question,
How can we believe that nine men and women sitting
in Washington can pass laws and rules that apply
equally well to a small tightly-knit Hasidic community
on Long Island, to the entire Appalachian South, or to
communities in southern California?
(And how can it be maintained that *they* should be
trusted to make this kind of decision, but the
communities and states at lower levels cannot be
so trusted?)
To be concrete, suppose that a small Mormon community in
Idaho collectively finds abortion incredibly repulsive and
abominable. What is so heinous about them passing local
laws that do not permit doctors to set up business performing
abortions? It seems to me to be none of our affair anyway.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 02:14:25 MST