[WOSG]

Yet it doesnt bother you that many of those recent "rights" like abortion etc. DO NOT REALLY EXIST in the Constitution????

The only real abrogation of Constutitional interpretation was the Pleesy v Ferguson line, wholly due to Southern segregationist Justices not living up to the words written in the 14th Amendment.

But imho the exception does not make the rule. Our consitutional interpretation has DIS-improved since 1963 not improved.

If you read carefully, yes, the 6th Amendment doesnt say taxpayers have to fund counsels for defendants.
Like Miranda, it's nice public policy but a Judicial court invention, not a Constitutional imperative.

[WOSG]

oops make that Plessy.

[Viva Le Dissention]

That was exactly my point about the 6th Amendment--as I stated earlier, it clearly does NOT allow for appointed counsel. But yet this is now an unquestionable right in our society.

Do you really think that we should have a society in which the poor are left to fend for themselves in the judicial arena? Seeing as you said that it is a nice social policy, I would think the answer to that question is no. The result is that the 6th Amendment is expanded, as it should be.

To answer your question, I'm not really bothered by any recent "invention" of rights. See my discussion on the 9th Amendment. There may be a judicial decision that I don't like, but I'm never really concerned with a judiciary that jealously guards the liberties of the citizenry, as any "activist" court necessarily does.

[ClancyJ]

Yet it doesnt bother you that many of those recent "rights" like abortion etc. DO NOT REALLY EXIST in the Constitution????

Great point!