With the recent announcement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's stepping down, many concerns has been brought fourth that judicial activism will further trump inalienable rights.
On the day that out Founding Fathers transferred the idea of inalienable rights from the Declaration of Independence to the the Constitution, this nation had created a blueprint for judicial officials to inspect and make Constitutional decisions. Well, this was the original intent.
With many days of the sun rising and setting, our government started out in its original small form, getting to the large version, and eventually transfusing to our current "mega government." Thinking about our past history of ill-advised selections, my individualistic mind ponders whether the up and coming Supreme Court Justice will take any resemblance by selecting a judicial activist.
By appointing a judicial nominee using his/her political stance rather than his Constitutional knowledge, the United States of America risks further dismantling our "inalienable rights." Inalienable rights states that god /spiritually given law has been passed down to man and should not be taken away because it is a right given to you. The opposite, unalienable rights, is man arbitrarily defining laws to fit his own need. Currently, most of our laws fit the later category.
My individual hopes ride mighty low about our current president appointing a constitutionally knowledgeable Supreme Court Justice. In college, Mr. Obama pondered over the nature of "world vision constitutional law", dangerously falling into the activist and unalienable camp.