ABSTRACT
As United States Supreme Court unenumerated rights jurisprudence unfolds, the significance of academic and political discourse among jurists, scholars, politicians, and journalists looms ever larger in charting the future developments of American constitutional rights. Accordingly, by contrasting the theories of M. E. Bradford and Ronald Dworkin the authors are presented with polarized academic views about the Supreme Court's legitimate role in articulating unenumerated rights policy. Reinstating the constitutional federalism would require undoing a good portion of twentieth-century constitutional law, especially as it gives life and sustenance to national supremacy over unenumerated rights. The mere attempt would require an instrumental national government of elites, functioning as Platonic guardians at war with the original federal constitutional arrangement that does not sanction nationalistic social engineering over unenumerated rights. According to Dworkin, the Constitution's principles are to be discovered and articulated by the justices, and in the hard cases–such as the articulation of unenumerated rights–it is an exercise in political theory.
