Aussie wrote on Jul 15
th, 2022 at 8:57pm:
Let me elaborate Aussie.
The Supreme Court just struck down Roe vs Wade.
The majority did so on the original intent argument of constitutional interpretation.
That there are no implied rights, if it is not spelled out it does not exist in the constitution.
Of course abortion, or even human privacy is not mentioned in the constitution at all.
But just a few days before the same court struck down a New York law prohibiting concealed carry of a weapon.
The Second Amendment says nothing, not one word or syllable about concealed carry.
Indeed it says the right must be "well regulated."
So what we have here is a Supreme Court that
has no coherent constitutional theory and is just going off their political gut feelings issue to issue.
Yes, I think I would have made a great law talking guy.
They do - it's not for any court to MAKE law. That's for the elected representatives. That's a pretty solid constitutional theory.
Also note the common law tradition in which cases are decided by courts on the basis of previous legal practice and decisions. Britain has a constitution but it is not codified in a single Act of Parliament precisely for this reason: the various acts, conventions, earlier judgements meet the purpose of a single code in other countries that were derived from the British system. The US, Australia maintain the common law tradition while also having a single written constitution that was in each case 'constituting a new country with it's own parliamentary authority, legal and political etc system. But common law is in the blood of all three polities (and some others with Britannic inheritance).