Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Constitution and the judiciary

October 26, 2008

Re "Two courts, one 'sin,' " editorial, Oct. 21

The U.S. Supreme Court's task in District of Columbia vs. Heller was "to say what the law is," as established in Marbury vs. Madison. The opinion and dissents in Heller are clear-cut, relating directly to the words of the 2nd Amendment. Agree or disagree, at least both sides are on topic with a direct constitutional issue.

Roe vs. Wade and Miranda vs. Arizona created rights unmentioned in the Constitution, bypassing the amendment process. Compare those to the 19th Amendment, which was needed to guarantee women the right to vote.

Can't you find a better case than Heller to illustrate your point that Justice Antonin Scalia can at times be a judicial activist?

Scott Mandell

Studio City

--

Maybe my copy of the U.S. Constitution is out of date, but I'm pretty sure those pesky Miranda warnings are explicitly found in the 5th and 6th amendments. Suggesting that Chief Justice Earl Warren simply pulled them out of thin air is laughable at best.

Further, the basis for the Roe decision is the right to privacy implicitly found throughout the Constitution (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments, to name a few places), not the "significance of trimesters." The harsh reality of overturning Roe would be the beginning of the destruction of the fundamental right to privacy that we are all entitled to, expressed by the founders or not.

As for the Heller decision, you are simply off-base. Everyone knows that conservatives never legislate from the bench (cough -- Bush vs. Gore -- cough).

Micah Bodenheimer

Fontana

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|