"penumbra" is legalese for umbrella. it is a term for a legal doctrine fashioned from whole cloth. for example, though the word "privacy" does not appear in the constitution nor any of its amendments, privacy is viewed as a "right" existing under the penumbra of other rights that are.
in other words, heretofore, it has been a fancy word to invoke to describe when judges make a doctrine up, and look for an excuse to establish it.
well, it has been to this point.
but, i suggest a penumbra doctrine for the bill of rights in the u.s. constitution which actually makes some sense. and, that would be simply that the whole of the bill of rights is also a "penumbra" or an expression of each of the separate bills of right, and that whenever a specific right belonging to the people is implicated by governmental action in one area, then all of the protections of the other bills of right are exercised as well to protect the people.
for instance, "freedom of speech" also should enjoy the case law and gloss given to the right to be secure in your papers, and in your home against unreasonable search and seizure. and, in like manner, and in equally good sense, a "freedom of speech" issue should also encompass the protections enjoyed under the rubric of freedom on association, and the like.
and, likewise the right "to keep and bear arms" under the second amendment should be recognized and be protected by the doctrines which inhere in freedom of speech, right to petition the government, right to be secure in ones papers and expression of beliefs, and the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure or violations of due process.
so, when some thug under the employ of the government tries to enter your home to seize your weapons without process and notice, or probable cause to investigate suspected & specifically enumerated criminal wrong doing on the pretext of unpopular or anti-government sentiments, then the entire panoply of rights and protections under the bill of rights is implicated.
it is a modest thought.
but, i think a good thought. for the right to be free of government intrusion and abridgment of right is nothing without the means to assert it by arms and rebellion, if necessary. and, such ought to be explicitly recognized under the law.
of course, legalisms such as proposed above, were called "parchment protections" by opponents of the bill of rights, who viewed such things as inherent in the proper political order. proponents of the bill of rights said, no, they are more than parchment protections, they serve to remind the people of the embodiment of their heritage and political right. by "parchment protections," it was meant that words written on paper were worthless things to a populous that did not have the starch to rise up and shoot tyrants, when it was needful, to protect against tyranny and factions.
you don't understand. then read "the federalist papers," by jay, hamilton and madison to get a fuller exposition of what i speak, and to understand what the founders meant by having the right to possess guns come in the bill of rights, just after freedom of speech and right to religious observance of choice.
in every way conceivable, the founders meant the second amendment right to keep and bear arms was the intellectual and factual penumbra to all the rest of the bills.
john jay @ 02.14.2015
dear readers (both of you):
reader "umpie" sent me this note by email. we have been friends for years. i don't know where he gets this stuff, but every now & again he comes up w/ some pretty good ideas. i think it is because he has a lot of time on his hands.
john jay
______________________________
Good point!
I personally think we are due a “ Bill of Restrictions”on the various branches of government. Such as term limits for legislators and senators, legislations must cite constitutional justification and the courts could look no farther, all legislation must include plain language outlines limiting the scope of said legislation, executive action must have a lifetime of only one year, after which it would require legislation. In addition executive actions would automatically be put before the Supreme Court and the court must rule on them prior to implementation. Any attempt to in mislead the public, or any other branch or agency of government on the scope , cost or any other aspect of a law would render the act void and expose the source of said inaccuracies to perjury. Call this the “Obama Amendments” if you will.
/s/ "umpie"
______________________________
p.s. these are pretty good ideas, i think. in a couple days, when i have not thought of anything to say/write, they will go into a main post.
Posted by: john jay | February 15, 2015 at 06:07 PM
Those ideas are all well and good, and I agree.
Can you fathom the amount of blood necessary to spelt to enact them?
Posted by: rightwingterrorist | February 15, 2015 at 06:48 PM
Stupid fingers and no edit option.
Can you fathom the amount of blood that would necessarily be spilled to enact them?
Posted by: rightwingterrorist | February 16, 2015 at 05:52 AM
right wing:
yes. about the same amount as if something along those lines is not enacted.
doing it the hard way would be quicker.
john jay
Posted by: john jay | February 19, 2015 at 08:07 PM