Dworkins Wishful-Thinkers Constitution Essay -- Argumentative Persuas

Dworkins Wishful-Thinkers temperABSTRACT Developing ideas counterbalance put forth in my Abortion Rights as spectral Freedom, I argue against Ronald Dworkins liberal view of constitutional interpretation while rejecting the originalism of rightnesss Scalia and Bork. I champion the view that Justice Black presents in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut. INTRODUCTIONIn Lifes Dominion Ronald Dworkin uses a liberal interpretation of the Constitution to defend constitutional rights to abortion and euthanasia. (1) According to Dworkin, the Constitution lays down general, general moral standards that government must respect but ... leaves it to ... judges to fix what these standards mean in concrete circumstances (p. 119). Any right behind become constitutionally protected if five Supreme Court justices allege it so. As with Peter Pan, so with rights protected by the Constitution, believing makes it so.In this paper I explain and reject Dworkins arguments for his view of constitu tional interpretation. and with Dworkin, I reject the originalism of Justice Scalia and Robert Bork. I champion, instead, the moderate view that Justice Hugo Black presents in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut. (2) DWORKINS ARGUMENTSDworkin notes that the Constitutions language, especially in some(prenominal) clauses of the Bill of Rights, is very abstract. The First Amendment says that Congress shall not infringe freedom of speech, shall not restrict freedom of religion, and shall not establish any religion. simply it says nothing to help judges decide whether specific laws against pornography or flag burning offend freedom of speech or whether laws that ... forbid inbred Americans to ingest peyote ... invade freedom of re... ...381 U.S. 479 (1965).(3) Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905).(4) stuff v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925).(5) Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479, Harlans concurring opinion at 500.(6) Casey v. Planned blood 60 LW 4795 (June 30, 1992) .(7) Griswold, at 522. (notes omitted)(8) Griswold, at 513.(9) Griswold, footnote 6 at 514.(10) Griswold, at 519.(11) Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 90-92 (1947)(Black dissenting). The inserted quote is from Federal Power Commission v Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575, 599, 601, n. 4. The spotless passage is quoted in Griswold, at 525.(12) Peter S. Wenz, Abortion Rights as Religious Freedom (Philadelphia Temple University Press, 1992).(13) See Wenz, pp. 163-167.(14) Calder v. Bull, 3 Dal. 386, 399 quoted in Griswold, at 525.(15) Griswold, at 519.(16) Griswold, at 501.