Constitutional Rights Have Limits

[Blues Man]

There is no Constitutional right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.

Read the Ninth Amendment

 

[BackAgain]

Read the Ninth Amendment

I did. It’s not in there.

 

[Blues Man]

I did. It’s not in there.

Read it again for comprehension.

It clearly states the rights enumerated in the Constitution are NOT the ONLY rights people have.

 

[BackAgain]

Read it again for comprehension.

It clearly states the rights enumerated in the Constitution are NOT the ONLY rights people have.

That is categorically different than the claim that the alleged “right” to have an abortion is a Constitutional right. So, you’re still wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

That is categorically different than the claim that the alleged “right” to have an abortion is a Constitutional right. So, you’re still wrong.

It doesn't matter.

the Constitution doesn't grant rights it never has it never will. Our entire system is based on the premise that rights are inherent in the person and not granted by the government.

 

[BackAgain]

It doesn't matter.

the Constitution doesn't grant rights it never has it never will. Our entire system is based on the premise that rights are inherent in the person and not granted by the government.

We aren’t discussing “granting” rights. We are talking about Constitutionally protected rights. There is no Constitutionally protected “right” to have an abortion in the US Constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

We aren’t discussing “granting” rights. We are talking about Constitutionally protected rights. There is no Constitutionally protected “right” to have an abortion in the US Constitution.

ALL rights are Constitutionally protected.

That's the whole purpose of the 9th Amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

ALL rights are Constitutionally protected.

That's the whole purpose of the 9th Amendment.

Not true. The rights enumerated by the US Constitution are “protected” by the U.S. That’s why they distinguish the rights which are enumerated from other rights which may be addressed by the States or the People.

The real purpose of the 9th Amendment was to make it explicitly clear that just because the States (and the People) were agreeing to form our Union, they could not (on the basis of such agreement) be denied the rights they already had.

 

[Blues Man]

Not true. The rights enumerated by the US Constitution are “protected” by the U.S. That’s why they distinguish the rights which are enumerated from other rights which may be addressed by the States or the People.

The real purpose of the 9th Amendment was to make it explicitly clear that just because the States (and the People) were agreeing to form our Union, they could not (on the basis of such agreement) be denied the rights they already had.

BUT they are not the only rights people have and are NOT the only rights protected by the Constitution

This is 8th grade civics

 

[BackAgain]

BUT they are not the only rights people have and are NOT the only rights protected by the Constitution

This is 8th grade civics

Then you had a problem in your school. Because your claim is incorrect. The US, in fact, offers no Constitutional protection for any of your rights beyond the ones which are enumerated IN the Constitution.

I’ll give a “fer instance:”

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You say he is violating your right to the “quiet enjoyment” of your home. You may indeed have such a right. But don’t bother trying to sue him in a Federal court. It’s not a right protected by the US Constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

Then you had a problem in your school. Because your claim is incorrect. The US, in fact, offers no Constitutional protection for any of your rights beyond the ones which are enumerated IN the Constitution.

I’ll give a “fer instance:”

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You say he is violating your right to the “quiet enjoyment” of your home. You may indeed have such a right. But don’t bother trying to sue him in a Federal court. It’s not a right protected by the US Constitution.

For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one. the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.

What Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights Does an American Have?

United States citizens enjoy written Constitutional rights and unwritten rights. What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an American have?

constitutionus.com

 

[BackAgain]

For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one. the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.

What Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights Does an American Have?

United States citizens enjoy written Constitutional rights and unwritten rights. What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an American have?

constitutionus.com

Make up your mind. It’s a right. You said that the US Constitution guarantees all rights. I showed you that it doesn’t.

That doesn’t mean that if a state somehow violates one of the US Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a person that the US can’t intercede. Two different notions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.

Agreed. Especially since the taxpayers regularly support the children of men with multiple baby mammas who are NOT man enough to take care of their kids.

Polygamy will never be fought for by the left because they associate it with Mormons. It won't be supported by conservatives because they don't get that an attack on freedom anywhere threatens all freedom.

Only libertarians would advocate for multi spouse marriage.

 

[1srelluc]

Agreed. Especially since the taxpayers regularly support the children of men with multiple baby mammas who are NOT man enough to take care of their kids.

Polygamy will never be fought for by the left because they associate it with Mormons. It won't be supported by conservatives because they don't get that an attack on freedom anywhere threatens all freedom.

Only libertarians would advocate for multi spouse marriage.

If they think all Mormons are like Romney they might find common cause with them.

 

[Blues Man]

Make up your mind. It’s a right. You said that the US Constitution guarantees all rights. I showed you that it doesn’t.

That doesn’t mean that if a state somehow violates one of the US Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a person that the US can’t intercede. Two different notions.

I said the Constitution clearly states in the 9th Amendment that there are more rights than those enumerated in its text.

And all those rights are just as protected as any other.

 

[BackAgain]

I said the Constitution clearly states in the 9th Amendment that there are more rights than those enumerated in its text.

And all those rights are just as protected as any other.

I know what you said. That’s why I responded to exactly that. If a state recognizes that you have a right (one not enumerated in the US Constitution), the Federal government doesn’t Constitutionally protect that right. That would be a State matter.

Now if the State denies you the same protection of that right as it accords to other people, you might be able to take the State to Federal court for the denial of the US Constitutionally guaranteed right of Equal Protection

Either way, you need to point to an enumerated right which the US Constitution protects if you want to claim that it is a U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[Blues Man]

I know what you said. That’s why I responded to exactly that. If a state recognizes that you have a right (one not enumerated in the US Constitution), the Federal government doesn’t Constitutionally protect that right. That would be a State matter.

Now if the State denies you the same protection of that right as it accords to other people, you might be able to take the State to Federal court for the denial of the US Constitutionally guaranteed right of Equal Protection

Either way, you need to point to an enumerated right which the US Constitution protects if you want to claim that it is a U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text. ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.

If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?

 

[BackAgain]

The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text. ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.

If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?

Nope. Absent a denial of equal protection (or some other proper basis), no litigant can run a case right up to SCOTUS. It’s called “jurisdiction.” This is why SCOTUS wouldn’t hear a case involving a mere disgruntled litigant’s state court outcome absent a valid federal jurisdictional basis.

 

[Pellinore]

You're both overlooking the idea (and viability) of implied rights.

Every government has inherent rights (intrinsic to being a government, the right to make laws and so on), express rights (clearly spelled out), and implied rights, which are not expressly stated but are understood as basic concepts upon which the more specific laws are based.

One of these implied rights is body autonomy, the idea that no one can take ownership and make demands on your personal self but you. It isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but it the basis for the protection against illegal seizure, the right not to self-incriminate, habeas corpus, and lots of others.

It's also the basis for, among other things, a case in Pittsburgh a few years back where a terminally ill man sued his cousin because he wouldn't donate half his liver for a transplant that would save his life. The case failed because the government could not violate the cousin's body autonomy, and the sick man died. This concept has been supported in jurisprudence at all levels for centuries, and just because it's implied rather than expressed doesn't make it any less binding.

The argument for legal abortion is based on the mother's body autonomy. Whether you agree with the conclusion or not, the basis for the argument is actually a real Constitutional thing.

 

[San Souci]

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.

Yes. It does. But the CONSEQUENCES of free speech are a PERSONAL Responsibility. If your speech harms or threatens ,you can be sued or Jailed.