" Libertarians typically favor an aggressive judiciary that is willing to overturn mistaken precedents and strike down unconstitutional state and federal statutes. The Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, for instance, has argued that the courts should adopt a presumption of liberty, meaning that the government should be required to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow fundamental. " Is not the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution based on the " presumption of liberty" ?
posted on 06/08/2010 5:57:01 PM PDT
(Support our troops....and vote out the RINOS!)
Is not the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution based on the " presumption of liberty" ?
No. They were based on the presumption of local control.
THAT is where there's a big gap--something that I think is more at the core than some supposed judicial activism of libertarian philosophy. The Constitution laid out what the feds were allowed, not restrictions on states.
I used past tense in my first sentence because the original presumptions have been twisted by the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been twisted.
The sad thing is, the Second Amendment, for example, is left out when the libs interpret the Fourteenth. Prior to the Fourteenth, the residents of a state could vote to restrict firearms in their state...now they shouldn't.
posted on 06/08/2010 6:20:51 PM PDT
(Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson