When all you have a is hammer, the old adage goes, everything looks like a nail. When everthing is a right, then everything is constitutionally required or constitutionally forbidden. Take education, for example. Some claim the right to education is constitutionally required. Fair enough. How does that, then, square with the teacher's rights to tenure and have string union representation? I though the right be in a union should also be constitutionally protected. Here in Canada, we have had our share of these conflicting rights clash - take the Chaoulli case. We have a right to healthcare, but somehow private healthcare is unCanadian, almost uncostitutional. But then when faced with terrible healthcare outcomes, the Supreme Court saves us by delcaring our system improper.
OK - so I am speaking generally and somewhat tongue in cheek.
But today (or yesterday depending on what time zone you are in), a judge in California faced with a lawsuit by students claiming that the system has failed them has declared teacher tenure unconstitutional. The ruling by the judge has caused all sorts of condemnation by the right for judicial activisim unions concerned about the impact this will have on its members, and why not? After all, education policy shouldn't really be made in the courts, but rather in the sober halls of the legislature. So you will pardon those on the right as they gloat at the irony understand why even conservatives are skeptical about the ruling despite agreeing with the outcome.
Undoubtedly, this will be appealed. It will probably be overturned, but then again it is California, so who knows.
It does point out that when we have become so accustomed to declaring everything a right, eventually these rights come home to clash. Finding the balance isn't that easy.
