Unenforceable Rights?

I've been thinking again about the judicial appointments process and how a way long time ago Judge Bork couldn't get elevated to the Supreme Court Bench. With Rhenquist likely to retire very soon due to ill health, the question of appointments and filibusters comes up.

I think Judge Bork would have been a terrible Supreme Court Judge. I think the best indication is his calling the IX and X Ammendments "ink blots". In essence what he is saying is that we have rights that cannot be protected in the courts. I think that is a dangerous position.

So I Google™ - Bork "ink blot" - and who do I come up with? Clayton Cramer, Randy Barnett, and Prof. Bainbridge discussing Raich. How timely.

Clayton says that the IXth and Xth Ammendments are unenforceable since they make mention of nothing specific.

I would like to point out that the 2nd was designed for just such situations. When the government can't figure out what the people's rights are or protect them. The 2nd Amdmt was to help the government understand.

So far the people of California have been restrained in the matter. Taking it to the courts. If the courts read the election returns they know that medical marijuana is popular even in a heavily Republican State like Montana.

BTW I think Randy has the better argument. Unenumerated rights are just as defensible as enumerated rights.

From time to time you can learn what unenumerated rights are important when you see citizens reaching for their guns.

Question is why let it get that far?

Stupidity in government.

So what else is new?