Constitutional Idiocies Produced by Fringe Ideologies

[Procrustes Stretched]

From a person who just skimmed this thread and spent some time reading some of your posts on here, this is what I get: You are trying to be too cute by half with your "analysis."

You would have the Constitution mean everything and nothing all at once.

The Bill of Rights is in there for a specific reason and to perform a specific function. I have the feeling you know that but have found it convenient for your own purposes to play fast and loose with the facts.

Additionally, I'll stand here and wait while you produce citations to decisions by the Supremes decided under the 9th Amendment.

Thank you, I guess. *blush

My analysis of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and my analysis of how Madison and Hamilton are two seperate issues and I am not sure which you are addressing here.

What I would have the Constitution mean is always dictated by the issue before me. All things are not equal.

I have the Fifth Edition of Ducat/Chase...Constitutional Interpretation, before me...but I'll pass on writing out parts of it here.

Is there anything you would have me look up for you that you are unclear of...concerning the 9th?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you are trying to defend Griswold, come out and fight.

Don't hide behind a BS thread about the whether the Constitution only protects specific rights or all rights.

Griswold was split a 7-2 decision of the Warren Court. A near unanimous decision compared to what happens under the morw conservative Court of today.

The famed and legenday Liberal Justice William O. Douglas wrote the opinion...I need not defend his brilliance.

another brilliant Justice, (another Lib?), Black joined Justice Stewart in his dissent.

Stewart wrote: ''I can find no...general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, or in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.''

as far as the right to privacy...Black wrote: ''I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.''

One of my main points with people like Kevin is they would be horrified to be told what views they are suppporting. In fact, most Americans would be.

There is the case to be made that the right of privacy is so fundamental as to trump any intepretation that calls it into question.

If you are a lawyer, you damned well know the difference in the "standard of review" that "rights" receive when they are specific rights protected under the Bill of Rights and "other rights" that are more speculative in nature.

Playing cat's paw with layman is just stupid.

You think so?
I was unawares Kevin was discussing the standard of review or was even aware of it.

sorry

If you're not a lawyer (taking nothing for granted), then I'll let you off the hook for not knowing that.

I have not taken the bar...yet.

*grin

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

something to see where I erred on a point, or misspoke because of...or misunderstood others, ... browser just jumped. I hate smaht browsers

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

It is not a right. 7 Judges can not fabricate a right that does not exist cause they like a case. Go ahead find anywhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to privacy and that you can murder for that right.

You are the lost one here. The ENTIRE argument is that it is NOT a right.

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

It is not a right. 7 Judges can not fabricate a right that does not exist cause they like a case. Go ahead find anywhere in the Constitution where it says you have a right to privacy and that you can murder for that right.

You are the lost one here. The ENTIRE argument is that it is NOT a right.

The Constitution says explicitly that there are rights not enumerated.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The left and the right both do it.

An ignorant and lazy understanding (using the Sarge's post as an example), of the Constitution in American public debate. Sarge, must have misread or been fed an idea that only the rights enumerated in the Constitution exist. Others are on the same diet of ignorance and laziness.

Simple.

LAst of revisited threads for the day