[88keys]

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment...."

..."as the second Justice Harlan recognized"...

Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?

Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?

[tpaine]

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
    
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;

the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

the right to keep and bear arms;

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 

It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
-628-


Therein lies the rub...whose "interest" and "broad" definition of the "continuum" of freedoms is not "arbitrary", but rather "reasonable and sensitive"?
Is it the proper role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine this?

Yep, it's their role.. And if they err in their determinations, we supposedly have a system of checks & balances. [Which isn't working, politically.]

Ultimately, the people decide, as they did with booze prohibition. They simply refused to obey an unconstitutional 'law/amendment', long before it was offically repealed.