My REAL issue is with people (not necessarily you) using the constitution to justify their own personal views on government. The constitution was setup as a framework for government that best preserves liberty. It doesn't forbid people from making stupid laws.
A good framework for liberty, such as the constitution, will always allow for a limitation on liberty (liberty to get rid of liberty) but it will make it hard to do and limited in scope. One of the key tenants of this framework is the have judges that ONLY apply the law as adopted and not apply personal judgment about whether or not the the law fulfills someones definition of "liberty". The later is the job of Congress.
It's really a matter of understanding roles. This result destroys the constitution by saying 9 lawyers are the arbiters of what is or isn't liberty. The constitution was set up to allow the people to do that unless that task is given to the government by the people.
So in short, I hate that people praise the decision because it "enhances liberty", legitimacy be damned. It's an ends justify the means thinking and it has long term consequences.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderator