OPINIONSrnRediscovering Philadelphiarnby George W. Careyrn”There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislativernand executive powers.”rn—MontesquieurnThe Ninth Amendment and thernPohtics of Creative Jurisprudence:rnDisparaging the Fundamental Rightrnof Popular Controlrnby Marshall L. DeRosarnNew Brunswick: Transaction Publishers;rn216 pp.,$29.95rnThe theme that unites the short,rnsomewhat disparate eight chaptersrnof this book is the use by the SupremernCourt of unenumerated rights—that is,rnrights beond those specifically enumeratedrnin the Bill of Rights—to invalidaternstate laws. The result of this practice, asrnDeRosa emphasizes at various pomts, isrnthat “popular control within the states”rnoer matters of rights and even publicrnpolic- has been diminished: the Courtrnsimph imposes its will, through thernmedium of unenumerated rights, uponrnGeorge W. Carey is a professor of governmentrnat Georgetown (jniversity andrneditor of the Political Science Reviewer.rnthe people of the 50 states. The two casesrnthat most cleariv illustrate this process,rnGriswoldv. Connecticut (1965) and RoernV. Wade (197?), are among the most notoriousrnin our constitutional history.rnFrom the “penumbras” formed bv “emanations”rnof various specified rights, thernCourt discovered the unenumeratedrn”right of priaey” (Griswold) that subsequentlyrnformed the basis for its invalidationrnof state anti-abortion laws (Roe).rnThe first chapter pro’ides a summarvrnview of DeRosa’s concerns, while each ofrnthe subsequent chapters deals with variousrnand more specific aspects of creativernjurisprudence, unenumerated rights,rnand federalism. DeRosa emphasizesrnthat the privileges and immunities clausernof the Constitution was originally understoodrnto allow the people of the statesrnwide latitude to determine, eitherrnthrough their state constitutions or byrnstatute, what the rights of state inhabitantsrnwould be. DeRosa later shows whyrnthe father and chief strategist of creati’ernjurisprudence was Roseoe Pound, andrnsets forth two modern and contrastingrnviews of unenumerated rights and thernConstitution: the nomocratic understandingrnof M.F. Bradford, stressingrnthe need for adherence to original intentrnand self-government and allowing only arnvery limited role to the judiciary, andrnRonald Dworkin’s rather open-endedrn”teleocratic” vision that would virtuallyrngive the Court unlimited pover oer thernstates (and everything else). ElsewherernDeRosa illustrates the more general reluctancernof the federal courts to allowrnthe state judiciaries autonomy or latitudernin cases involving rights or claims thereto;rnhe laments the Court’s sanctioningrnof congressional gun-control policies,rnthereby leaving “a state’s constitutionalrnright of self-defense” to “the discretionrnof national electoral politics.” In the veryrnbrief final chapter, he outlines a suggestedrnconstitutional change designed tornrestore “popular control and a viablernAmerican federalism,” the two majorrn”linchpins of the original American constitutionalrnorder”: namely, whenever arnmajority of state “chief judicial officials”rn(one per state) declares a decision of thernSEPTEMBER 1996/23rnrnrn