FW from Chip Lupu: Schaivo

[Zietlow, Rebecca E.]

I gather from Sam's comment that he does not like the bill (am I wrong?)  I don't like it either, and I disagree with the "right to life" interpretation, but I do think that it is good for the public to debate what the constitution means, and to ask their representatives to enact legislation consistent with their constitutional vision.  That is, the process itself is a good thing even if I don't like the outcome.
 
As Bobby suggests, in evaluating popular constitutionalism we have to consider it more broadly.  I very much like the result of many other political movements based on popular constitutionalism in our history, including abolition, the National Labor Relations Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
 
Rebecca Z

-----Original Message-----
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of RJLipkin at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 10:32 AM
To: srbagenstos at wulaw.wustl.edu
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: FW from Chip Lupu: Schaivo



In a message dated 3/21/2005 10:16:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, srbagenstos at wulaw.wustl.edu writes:

This bill is arguably an example of popular constitutionalism in
action.  People can judge for themselves what that says about the merits
of the bill and/or of popular constitutionalism.


        To be fair to popular constitutionalism, I think we should not assess its merits on a case by case basis.  Rather, it should be evaluated only in terms of a system of popular constitution (whatever that might be) that applies generally to constitutional interpretation and application.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050321/8308593a/attachment.htm