[rayiner]

> If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up.

One, that’s not quite true. Sometimes the Constitution uses broad language. For example, the Commerce Clause is worded expansively. It’s probably been pushed a bit beyond the text, but the bigger impact is from vastly more activity in the country involving “interstate commerce.” Regardless, that’s well within the scope of interpretation and judgment.

By contrast, there are a number of things the Supreme Court has simply made up. Conjuring a “right to privacy” from “penumbras” of the other amendments is an example. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” formulation of the 4th amendment. The “wall of separation” of church and state. The country wouldn’t fall into the ocean without these things.

The administrative state is probably the most unconstitutional thing that’s simultaneously necessary. Specifically, regulatory agencies in the executive branch that combine legislative and judicial functions. (E.g. having the ability to promulgate rules and then adjudicate violations.) But one can imagine workarounds. E.g. executive agencies propose rules which Congress enacts. (Proposing laws is actually a function of the executive branch.)

[gassit]

I would be interested in reading some detail of the "wall of separation" of church and state being something that the Supreme Court made up. It seems quite self evident from the text of the First Amendment. And the quote seems to come directly from Jefferson?

[rayiner]

The phrase “establishment of religion” has a specific meaning: official state churches that existed at the time: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...

Jefferson was a Francophile that had a radically different view of the first amendment than the other founding fathers. The constitution meant to create a society of religious pluralism, not French style secularism. See: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

[jfrunyon]

The commerce clause is not worded expansively. The supreme court over the last ~century has expanded it expansively.

As far as the right to privacy, see the 9th amendment.

[sershe]

In my view, having executive agencies propose rules to congress would have been a much better solution. Why is prescriptive administrative state (i.e. outside of expert analysis that informs the decisions of others) "necessary"?

[xxpor]

Sovereign immunity is also made up.

There's a ton of things that were just so obvious as to not require writing down.

[jjlustig]

> By contrast, there are a number of things the Supreme Court has simply made up. Conjuring a “right to privacy” from “penumbras” of the other amendments is an example.

If you take the majority view from Griswold, I agree. But if you take the pre-Slaughterhouse view of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment (yes, I although I loathe to say it, an originalist view), I don’t think a fundamental right to privacy can be thought of as that far fetched.