If SOME Constitutional Rights are Important, Does that Mean that Some Others Aren’t?

The article I have linked to is from the Huffington Post, but, interestingly enough (well, _I_ thought it was interesting), I found it through The Volokh Conspiracy  blog which, despite the name, is a respected and influential legal and political blog, most contributors to which are law professors and academics from across the U.S.  Most, but not all, of the contributors lean libertarian or conservative, but there occasionally are links to thoughtful/insightful articles from the Left or, more often, articles in which one of the regular contributors fairly presents the arguments on two or more sides of an issue.

In this particular article, the author argues that, while the Supreme Court intensely scrutinizes government attempts to regulate/restrict certain constitutional or legal rights, it has been willing to accept almost any plausible excuse for restricting others (which, in effect, deprives the aggrieved of recourse).  A further complication (my observation, not necessarily that of the authors) is that some of the rights the Court most vigorously safeguards are rights “discovered” by the Court, and which are not actually articulated in the Constitution or Amendments, while some of the “almost anything goes” rights were written into the Bill of Rights.

Anyhow, if you have an interest in concepts, and not just in issues, it’s worth reading.


19 thoughts on “If SOME Constitutional Rights are Important, Does that Mean that Some Others Aren’t?”

  1. Pingback: Nike Shoes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *