cam . # .

I suspect they want one as they have been: contorting themselves in past cases to try and derive legislative protections for things like freedom of political speech. I used to think it was a good thing that we didn\'t have a bill of rights as I thought implied showed greater foundational strength, but it doesn\'t, it is more like spaghetti code that exists outside of the system requirements. So it is largely hidden and arbitrary in execution.

I don\'t understand why social welfare and sense of justice would require rights anyway, both those are well within the rightful domain of the legislature. Liberty is what is intended to be protected with a bill of rights. Maybe they think that the absence of arbitrary government through rights, which the positive is uniformity of law, will help. Don\'t see how.

The other thing that struck me reading through that decision was there is a doctrine, inference, proposition, construction, etc for everything. Basically there are so many to choose from that it gave the impression they can be used to justify any decision or outcome. Certainly the majority and dissent used the same information for different conclusions.

cam