[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
That is a statement of economic and social ideology, not a Constitutional argument.

As I said before: the Lochner-era cases (driven by right-wing social and economic ideology, rather than Constitutional accuracy) were activist to their core, and FDR was right to finally put a stop to it and restore Congress' regulatory authority to its proper Constitutional position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this seems to be the crux of your argument (I think). Everything else you said seems to stem from this. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I really don't understand your perspective on this.

As I understand it, judicial activism is when the judges add meaning to the constitution that wasn't there before.

So, the constitution says:
[ QUOTE ]
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the question becomes the definition of the word "liberty", right? What do you consider to be the definition of the word?

From dictionary.com:
[ QUOTE ]
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain to me how this does not include freedom to come to agreement with others? Given we need to contract with others for virtually everything we do (unless we're subsistence farmers), I don't see how you could possible think "liberty" doesn't include this.


Edit:
Did they need to specify absolutely every possible liberty to satisfy you?
ie
"nor shall the state deprive any person of the following rights:
1. Reading twoplustwo
2. Posting on twoplustwo
3. Making a poll on twoplustwo
4. Donking the turn
5. MSPainting
6. Saying: 'DUCY?'
7. Accusing someone of Argumentum ad hominem
etc etc"
I think this might get a little excessive, don't you?