zlacker

Good writeup. Another thing that seems bad about it is that "not being (clearly defined as a right)" isn't the same as "being clearly defined as (not a right)". I know it's the math in me speaking, but that negation seems really important.

It amounts to saying that if the courts haven't clearly established a right, then you effectively don't get access to it, while the constitution (and basic ethics) is pretty clear that rights not being specifically enumerated isn't supposed to be construed as denying those rights.