Hi Goin fishin,
Interesting and important modifications. Thanks.
I guess my big argument is that the Bill of Rights seems to define its principles as unique and individual actors in the Constitutional drama. And for me, few, if any, principles can be treated this way. Reality is that rights and principles conflict with one another. And we find we need to start watering them and modifying them in order to accomodate circumstances.
This is life after the Fall. Principles have exceptions: individual freedom is restricted by issues of harm and public benefit; sharing by ownership and privacy; habeas corpus by extreme threat to life; life by choice and choice by life. The issue isn't that one or the other is right. The point is that good principles can conflict. And so a statement which says one is an undilutable right is asking for trouble.
In which case, the conflicts inherent in these important and almost unchangeable statements will generate issues which are essentially political. But the Constitution takes them out of the sphere in which they can sensibly be discussed and voted upon and changed by the people of the United States of America and removes them to the deliberations of judges.
Which is why, as you say, the people who interpret the documents are so important. Practically-speaking, it appears to me some of the judges treat these principles as rebuttable presumptions. So maybe the Supreme Court is the safety valve which allows for the necessary adaptation of US society.
AI
