Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Recognizing new rights shouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. It is possible under law, which has a vastly lower bar. If we can't pass it by law, we surely can't surpass the even higher bar Constitutional amendment.

The law is already a high bar. The process is designed to favor inaction. A dedicated minority can prevent law from passage -- and can do so solely for political reasons, regardless of their personal feelings or those of their constituents. To pass a law requires control of the House and the Senate (by a filibuster-proof margin) and the Presidency, at the same time. And an amendment is even higher than that.

The Supreme Court should be able to shortcut that by recognizing that the 9th Amendment explicitly forbids a reading of "you don't have this right if James Madison didn't give it to you". When they make that claim, the entire process is cast in doubt.

I would vastly rather see the Congress pass these rights. But when the Congress has cemented a Supreme Court dedicated to ensuring that you gain no rights, and is further willing to use any minority advantage to guarantee that it can't be done by law, then the Constitution really is a suicide pact.



What are 'new' rights? They're not technological.

The Constitution draws its concept of rights from philosophy surrounding natural rights. If you're not using the word in that context you're talking about something else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: