"Strabo" wrote in message
...


The larger problem is that Constitutional law is more complicated than
most
people think it is. There are many conflicts and events that the
Constitution didn't anticipate.

Isn't that strange. I find the Constitution very simple and
straight forward. But then I don't have a goal to subvert
inherent rights.

Only the simple-minded think it's simple, Strabo. Those, and the ones who
haven't read enough Supreme Court cases to see how often rights are in
conflict, or how often applying a provision of the Constitution to a case
involving a legislature's (state or federal) authority to write a particular
law winds up being ambiguous, contradictory, or both.

For example, how about the Third Rail of the Constitution, the 10th
Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."

So, given that, and any other provision of the Constitution you want to use,
how would you have decided Griswold v. Connecticut? That's the case in which
the medical doctor for the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut gave a
prescription for some form of contraceptive to a married couple, and was
fined for it under CT law. It was illegal in CT to give advice, or for a
doctor to prescribe any form of contraception, including condoms.

Was the state proscribed from making such legislation and enforcing it? Is
there a right to privacy in such circumstances, and if so, where is it
written? Is this a case of a right being reserved to the States, or to the
people?

Have fun chewing on that one. There are about a thousand more just like it,
only some are harder.

Ed Huntress