ASKED OF A candidate to the Supreme Court such as Judge Sotomayor.
Given that it is justifiable under the law — praiseworthy and one step removed from mandatory — to use force, even lethal force, in the prevention of a felony, how much more so in the prevention of a violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the authority for the felony law rises from the latter document?
And, given that a citizen has a right to self-defense, what is the appropriate response to an apparently irresistable infringement by government on the rights of the governed?
What? No right to self-defense? Not in the text? But what of the right to privacy? What of the Ninth Amendment? What part of this is incomprehensible to you?
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Given the nature of the Constitution as a charter of limitations on the power of government as balanced against the rights of individual citizens, how appropriate is it for agents of the state to — and, your honor, these are scorn quotes — “interpret” that document? In what way is it meet for a court to deny standing to any citizen seeking redress of grievances for violations of the supreme law by agents of the state?