[Pikachu_Dad]

Doesn’t this article violate all rules of prudence?

The Canadian free press espousing views on the U.S. Constitution?

[WriteOn]

Didn’t know that. Good article.

[Terry L Smith]

dear sean,

you wrote:
“Doesn’t this article violate all rules of prudence?

The Canadian free press espousing views on the U.S. Constitution?”

I suggest you look closely at this long-standing news outlet, and then research the word, ‘irony’, instead of simply writing what you did.

[Phlyer]

Sometimes, the only place you can get an "American" view published is in the foreign press. Actually, it's not 'The Canadian Free Press' espousing views, it's a US citizen espousing views in that forum. This is not written as a staff editorial.

The article itself is pretty good, and in fact for most of it I was agreeing completely. For example: The federal government had no authority to interject itself into Roe v. Wade.

I do disagree on the topic of judicial review on one aspect. The US Constitution is our contract with ourselves, and in it we delegate certain authority to the federal government. In particular, we grant to the federal court system 'original jurisdiction' when one of the States is a party to the dispute. Among the authority we delegate to the federal government is the responsibility to see that the rights established in the Constitution are upheld ("not infringed").

In the case of a law passed by either Congress or a State that violated the 'privileges and immunities of a Unites States citizen' (once that amendment was passed) for example, it would be proper for the federal courts to strike it down as unConstitutional. However, there is a world of difference between the very narrow authority to say that something is unConstitutional, (To say, "no" on something) and the activist legislation from the bench of saying what 'yes' must be.