I respect Hamilton's point of view, and I certainly concur that the Bill of Rights isn't every right that we should have.
However. (There's always a butt on these things, aren't there?)
The law is fairly tricky. You have to write your laws down. You have to say what is ok and what isn't, and it needs to be on paper and reproducable so that everyone will agree with it.
If you have a ruler (President, Supreme Court Justice) who believes that X and Y are right, that's just fine...but if it isn't on written record, what's going to make that true when that ruler is someone else entirely?
The law doesn't like value judgements. The suck part about that is most interpretations are just that...value judgements.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Ben's not here to answer that...
Date: 2003-05-05 03:08 pm (UTC)However. (There's always a butt on these things, aren't there?)
The law is fairly tricky. You have to write your laws down. You have to say what is ok and what isn't, and it needs to be on paper and reproducable so that everyone will agree with it.
If you have a ruler (President, Supreme Court Justice) who believes that X and Y are right, that's just fine...but if it isn't on written record, what's going to make that true when that ruler is someone else entirely?
The law doesn't like value judgements. The suck part about that is most interpretations are just that...value judgements.