Question/Prompt for this Week:

There are three separate questions -- you can choose which one to answer for your initial post.

Question #1:

This week, we spent a significant amount of time reviewing the rights contained in the Bill of Rights (as well as some other rights such as privacy that are penumbral rights). While there is always more detail about the extent of our rights, even just a basic examination of the Bill of Rights allows us to see the core concepts that are protected.

My question for you:in your opinion, are there rights in the Bill of Rights that should not be thereorare there rights that should be included but are not?Explain indetail.When answering this, make sure to outline the concepts behind the right and carefully advocate your case.Also, I would suggest trying to anticipate what opponents to your position would say and integrate that into your explanation.

Question #2:

In order to answer this question, you must watch the linked discussion between Scalia and Breyer (this is the optional video for this week

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNRxF_9VU8&feature=emb_title(Links to an external site.)

In this lecture/talk -- Justice Scalia and Breyer talk about their theory of judicial interpretation.Which theory do you find more compelling?In other words,which one do you agree with and why?Explain with detail.In doing this, make sure you briefly outline what each perspective is.

Question #3

We have talked about law and justice being distinct concepts.With this being said,what makes a law just or unjust?Explain.Make sure you provide detail about how we can assess the difference between them.

Note -- this question draws from Chapter 2, however, I think it is still a very key and important conversation.