Quote:
Quote:
But I'm willing to entertain some other principle that could be used to tell judges to their faces, "You're wrong."
On another thread I proposed the following:
The Freedoms Amendment
The Supreme Court shall pass no new judgment that decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals, and shall invalidate any new action of the federal or state legislature which decreases or restricts the freedoms of individuals. No individual shall be understood as having, nor be newly granted, the right or freedom to decrease or restrict the freedoms of any other individual on any grounds whatsoever, including religious.
I like the concept, but not sure I agree with it as it is. As is, hypothetically wouldn't it exempt someone from being sent to prison as the law they broke would be unconstitutional given it violates their freedom?
Yes. By design. If a new law (the word "new" in the amendment is important) decreases or restricts freedom, it would be invalidated by the Supreme Court, and anyone who went to prison for violating this law would have to be released. That's exactly the outcome I want. So, for example, if a new law made abortion a crime, the Supreme Court would be obligated to strike down that law, due to the Freedoms Amendment.
The single most important thing about the United States is that we uphold and defend freedom. That's the hill we must be willing to die on. Whether the Christian Right likes it or not.
