Let's get something straight about 'enumerated' vs 'unenumerated' rights

So you mean to say the states can operate and legislate in complete violation of the rights of man? That doesn't square with the 14th Amendment or common sense. Not persuasive at all.

 

I already knew that Rod.

Can you point me towards where I can find an exhaustive listing of God-given, natural, inalienable rights?

 

All of the above completely missed or ignored my points, so I have no reply to your retorts.

Except it was unconstitutional and outside of their jurisdiction and authority.

You believe that one unelected person in a black robe should be able to dictate how the entire country operates whether it is 5/4 or an unmanageable 15/14, and that the court should be packed ala FDR until you get what you want. I do not.

Plus you have no idea how the supreme court can be appointed with an equal number of one faction versus another. Who would determine if the president was nominating justices with the correct credentials as called for in your Amendment #35? Would the Senate still confirm? Who would insure they confirmed appropriately? Would it also apply to appeals courts? District courts? What would the factions be? Democrat and Republican? Liberal and conservative? Which flavor of liberal and conservative? Independent and Socialist? If the centrist justice resigned would the president have to nominate a centrist replacement? Who would decide if the criteria was met? Would the division have to be redesigned say every four or eight years? By whom? The president? Congress? An unelected commission? SCOTUS itself? How about the CEOs of Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, the NY Times, and Bill Gates???

 

Very thought provoking question. IMO it is far easier to have the penumbra of the right to life extend to any living being with clear human characteristics whether born or not, than it is to extend to the right (whatever it is) to abortion.

 

How would anybody know???

 

The only thing that any statute does is interfere with rights. The 14th amendment says only that justice has to treat every individual equally and taking away rights has to be done with due process. It does not say the state cannot take away rights. The state most assuredly can take away rights.

 

Not really. The Constitution is a good place to start as the framers did a good job of trying to figure them out. It starts with the broad life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property was seriously discussed in this group but they decided it wasn't necessary), and then goes on to list natural rights that the government cannot take away in the main constitution and many amendments. The writers knew they could not list them all, hence the 9th amendment where they said there could be some other natural rights not listed in the Constitution but nonetheless constitutional.. Then the 10th amendment kinda says whatever the constitution might have missed basically is left up to the states.

 

What constitutionally required, compelling public interest was served by the Jim Crow laws of southern states?

 

None that I'm aware of. Just another example of SCOTUS getting it all wrong.

 

Riiiight, Just wow.
Says the poster who thinks the constitution governs all his rights
Sorry it was over your head to understand it.
Now go accuse everyone you can't dispute a Trump supporter like the good CNN soldier you are.

 

Well, let's review the comments:

You wrote:
The nuclear family with a heterosexual married couple has been unquestionably proven to be in society's best interest, hence its legalization.

I countered with:
I don't think marriage, it's legality, should have anything to do with 'what's best for society' if your standard are children.

You rebutted,
"Should" has nothing to do with it. Experience and history has shown it to be true.

I will reiterate my refutation:

No, it doesn't -- history and experience, if we consider the entirety of known history, favors polygamy, which is hardly the 'nuclear family' you assumed was 'in the best interest of society' because 'history has shown it to be true' so your conclusion must be cherry picking history. That 'retort' is on point and refutes with precision your statement.

SCOTUS is the ultimate authority determining what the constitution says. Sorry, you are incorrect.

The likelihood of 'one elected person' determining how the entire country operates is much stronger with a 5/4 (given the swing vote) court than a 15/14 court. With a 15/14 court, the odds are much greater than any justice would have to build a consensus a several justices on any ruling. With that many on the court, the odds of strict party line votes are far more difficult with 15 or 14 justices than 5 or 4 justicies, since, though they are appointed by one of the two parties, they don't always vote according to party thinking. 29 (or a much better number than 9) provides a greater 'checks and balances' than a 5/4 court ever would, though a 5/4 court is better than a 6/3 court.

Any details such as you mention can always be worked out. You are worry-worting a problem that resourceful minds could easily tackle.

 

So you fully agree with the SCOTUS even when they are flat out wrong. I prefer checks on errant justices.

Oh, yeah?? Give me just a peek.

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are grand, but at the same time very vague. Does smoking tobacco or walking on the beach come under liberty, or the pursuit of happiness?

There are many references in the Constitution to owning property. It seems so obvious that there is no need mentioning it, "the right to own property" somewhere in the document. It's a given.

Your last 2 sentences suggest that you might not be aware that rights and powers are 2 separate things. We the people have rights, the governments we create to protect us have powers.

Powers and rights are not the same thing.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED to DENY or DISPARAGE other rights retained by the people.

It's painfully obvious that you and others like Condor blatantly DENY the existence of certain rights that you don't like to discuss.

 

And when they don't.............?

 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was meant to be broad, general, and unspecific. In fact it is in the Declaration but not explicitly in the Constitution. The leading philosophers usually included "property" because property is essential to liberty. But the framers thought it was obvious so did not include it explicitly as you say.

I agree, which is why I muddied up my connection with the 9th and 10th amendments.

I adamantly, but not blatantly, deny some rights as constitutional (but am willing to discuss anything). And I do not deny constitutional rights because of any personal preference. I deny or support constitutional rights based solely on my understanding of the Constitution. The salient point of discussion is not rights per se but constitutional rights. I haven't fully concluded yet but I don't think I am opposed to same sex marriages; but they are not a constitutional right, like gun ownership and inter-racial marriages are.

 

Then they can be properly declared unconstitutional, like IIRC the Texas law against gay sodomy was.

 

I do understand your point, and I thank you for your courteous presentation. I must go now, but a short reply: I think your understanding of constitutional principles is incomplete, but I must confess my Libertarian leanings and prejudices.

I've read many books about the document and its principles, all set in the context of the principles noted in Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man. I'm going to peruse The Supreme Court's Constitution, a 1987 book by Bernard H. Siegan and try to find something that might help your understanding.

 

Isn't everybody's, including supreme court justices? Nary a month goes by that I don't learn something new or different about the Constitution. Of course a big so-called problem with the Constitution is that deliberately and with conscious aforethought the framers purposefully did not make it very explicit or complete in order to keep it short and sweet. This made a significantly better and stable constitution but opens the door for interpretations.

 

Remember that in 1787 the reason for their meeting in Philly was to edit, correct, modify the existing Articles of Confederation.

They were constrained by time and difficult travel, and the result was a brand new founding document, essentially a spontaneous event. As a layman, it seems to me that any founding document written by men will be subject to interpretation.

Other good books on the matter you might consider are: James Madison And the Future of Limited Government, published 2002 by Cato Institute, edited by John Samples.

The Bill Of Rights by Akhil Reed Amar 1998 by Yale University.

Restoring the Lost Constitution (The Presumption of Liberty) 1998 by Randy E. Barnett, Princeton University Press.

 

@Patricio Da Silva
You need an attitude adjustment.
Saying condescending things like “got that?” In giant letters doesn’t make for constructive conversation/
And now you know why your threads (or shall I say rants) don’t get taken seriously
Also, have you heard of the golden rule?
Do unto others as you want others to do it unto you/
Maybe you should follow that rule and maybe it can help with your toxic flame baiting TROLL threads

I’ll be watching your threads closely and reporting anything I find offensive


GOT THAT?

 

Oh, please do. And i suppose you will report the other 10,000 posts that didn't get that, as well?

Got it.