Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlf3.gvl.unisys.com!tredysvr!cellar!rogue From: rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rogue Winter) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: Date: 13 Apr 91 22:56:50 GMT References: Sender: bbs@cellar.UUCP (The Cellar BBS) Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system Lines: 29 stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: [Argument about protecting access rights to tools deleted.] > So it seems to me that what we should be pushing for is not additional > enumeration of rights in the Constitution but legislative > implementations of the protections already given by the Constitution. > To this end, perhaps we should try to figure out what "implicit" > rights we want to protect (and how to apply the explicit ones to new > situations). > > -- > --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) The trouble with "pure" legislation not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution is the current Supreme Court's (ahem) non-activist propensity to overturn any legislation that can (not does) appear to be Constitutionally shaky and does not follow the Great Conservative Tradition. Anything that guaranteed the rights of individuals would be percieved as infringing on the rights of legal entities (e.g. corporations). Human beings, despite the registration of Social Security numbers, et.al. are not established by the court as independent entities. Rogue Winter : "How can you say I only protected people in South rogue@cellar.uucp : Philadelphia? I protected people all over this city; it uunet!cellar!rogue: didn't matter if they were in South Philadelphia or Cellar 215/3369503: Northeast Philadelphia." -- Frank Rizzo, 4/12/91