NCJ Number
141386
Journal
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume: 15 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1992) Pages: 149-156
Date Published
1992
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article addresses the appropriate way for the courts to interpret the Bill of Rights.
Abstract
The Supreme Court should interpret the Bill of Rights and all provisions of law neither narrowly nor broadly but in good faith to mean, as best can be determined, what its various provisions were intended to mean. A constitutional right, a constitutionally protected interest, is immune from change through the ordinary political process and, in a democracy, is a restriction on the power of self-government. The more substantial justification for limits on self-government is that the limits may correct or counteract defects in the democratic political process. If constitutional rights in a democracy are perceived appropriately as limitations on the powers of self-government, their expansion or multiplication does not necessarily contribute to human advancement. Few would favor the support of the Bill of Rights in its present form. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union demonstrates unbounded enthusiasm for the First Amendment but none for the Second Amendment which grants a right to bear arms. The Third Amendment, which deals with quartering troops in wartime, provides another example of irrelevance in terms of current problems. 16 footnotes