|
RapierFugue -> RE: Don't bloody well touch me!!! (11/24/2010 3:56:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyPact
This, to Me, makes more sense. It has a greater stability and dedication factor. While I wouldn't want to project how the whole thing would go over in a litigation sense, it seems what you are suggesting here would give a better leg to stand on.
Agreed - no-one can say for sure how it would go; all court rulings, from local to Supreme Court, are a bit of a step into the unknown. However, what this subject needs is dignified discussion, debate, consultation and finally ruling by those in power, not it remaining the circus it so clearly is now, with minimum wage muppets as effectively policy makers. My feeling (and again I'm not a lawyer) is that there would be a direct conflict between Constitutional rights, and legislation passed in the heated aftermath of 9/11. In more reasoned times as hopefully these are, I would think people as clever as SC justices could enlighten we mere common folk [;)]
Make no mistake though, civil disobedience has its place; if nothing else the protest focussed additional scrutiny on the system under dispute.
One other point; in this still-new 21st century, with technology becoming ever more complex and capable, the constitutional battles yet to be fought will mostly not be the ones of earlier times - not the single, individual choice decisions of Roe V Wade, for example (as important as that was). No, in times to come the battleground will be the need for personal freedom and privacy in a world where those in authority can listen to any conversation, anywhere, if they chose (read are allowed) to, and effectively strip people without taking their clothes off, or insist on others placing hands upon them if they chose not to meekly submit. Or where corporations can "mine" personal data about an individual, without that individual's permission or knowledge.
|
|
|
|
