"As a legal system grows, the remedies that it affords substantially proliferate, a development to which the courts contribute, but in which the legislature has an even larger hand. There has been major growth of this kind in our system..." 1
             Weschler argues that evidence for general jurisdiction is present in the constitutional text itself, and because of this, judges have a duty to look to principles. I will examine the arguments Weschler gives to support his basis for jurisdiction. There are situations where the neutral solution to principles is difficult to determine, and no action is taken to make changes to the law. In the case of US drug law, neutrality of principles is difficult to determine because each side of the argument has reasons that support their view. I recognize the benefit Weschler's chain of reasoning has given to a legal system, but I will highlight an aspect of the legal system that is inconsistent according to a neutrality of principles.
             Weschler believes judges have a duty to follow principles. He begins the argument by redefining the basis for jurisdiction given to him by Judge Hand. Judge Hand's definition is one in which jurisprudence is "not a logical deduction from the structure of the Constitution but only a practical condition upon its successful operation, it need not be exercised whenever a court sees, or thinks that it sees, an invasion of the Constitution." 2 Weschler disagrees on two aspects. First, he indicates there is textual representation in the US constitution for jurisdiction. This is to be found in a construed meaning of the supremacy clause. 3 Secondly, he states judges have a duty to jurisdiction. "For me, as for anyone who finds the judicial power anchored in the Constitution, there is no such escape from the judicial obligation..." 4 If they have the duty, then judges must look to principles if they are relevant to the case. Furthermore, there needs to b
             ...