Constitutional Rights Have Limits

[Pellinore]

I am not making predictions. But bad rulings aren’t immune from reconsideration. And Roe v. Wade was a shabbily decided decision.

Rights exist even outside of the Constitution and laws. I congratulate you on knowing that. In other words, the 9th Amendment recognizes that just because the Constitution was being ratified didn’t mean that the people would give up any of their rights. And? Are you now claiming that this means that the protection of the US government is given to people for all those other rights?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's also what the Supreme Court has been saying for generations, and what the First Congress said when they ratified the Ninth Amendment.

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

By the text itself, the word "others" is in contrast to "enumerated" rights, meaning unenumerated rights. Implied rights are, by definition, unenumerated. They're not listed; they're implied. It's exactly what we're talking about.

As it turns out, I wasn't talking about Roe v Wade (though I can understand the confusion), but Griswold v Connecticut from the 1960s, which had to do with a married couple's right to use contraception. One of its multiple concurrent reasons was the Ninth Amendment, because it protects exactly what it says it does. They went back to Common Law, tradition, and everything the United States has done since founding and determined that, yes, an implied right to privacy is an undercurrent that forms the base of so many other statutes and decisions that it definitely exists.

Also, in answer to your last question, yes, the protection of the US Government extends to people's implied rights. The Constitution also does not express grant us the right to vote, and yet we each have it because it is implied. Same goes with our right to interstate travel, our rights to get married and have children, and to choose how to raise those children. Those are all rights that we have and are protected, and yet none of them are expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's also what the Supreme Court has been saying for generations, and what the First Congress said when they ratified the Ninth Amendment.

By the text itself, the word "others" is in contrast to "enumerated" rights, meaning unenumerated rights. Implied rights are, by definition, unenumerated. They're not listed; they're implied. It's exactly what we're talking about.

As it turns out, I wasn't talking about Roe v Wade (though I can understand the confusion), but Griswold v Connecticut from the 1960s, which had to do with a married couple's right to use contraception. One of its multiple concurrent reasons was the Ninth Amendment, because it protects exactly what it says it does. They went back to Common Law, tradition, and everything the United States has done since founding and determined that, yes, an implied right to privacy is an undercurrent that forms the base of so many other statutes and decisions that it definitely exists.

Also, in answer to your last question, yes, the protection of the US Government extends to people's implied rights. The Constitution also does not express grant us the right to vote, and yet we each have it because it is implied. Same goes with our right to interstate travel, our rights to get married and have children, and to choose how to raise those children. Those are all rights that we have and are protected, and yet none of them are expressly enumerated in the Constitution.

Griswold was a major foundation for Roe.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision does make some reference to the 9th, I don’t mind conceding that point. In fact, I already did. But I see no evidence that it’s the basis of the decision. The simply SCOTUS made up the law. The SCOTUS isn’t the legislature. It’s not supposed to make up law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong. There is an implied right to privacy as determined by — yep — SCOTUS. I’m okay with that bit if fiction up to a point. But to then extract the right to an abortion as an adjunct of the right to choose as a corollary of a right to privacy means the SCOTUS has been legislating. It’s not in the Constitution.

There is a Constitutional right to privacy, whether the neo-fascist authoritarian right likes it or not.

 

[KissMy]

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.

Tranquility is protected by the US Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

In the past the more children you had, the more workers you had. In South Africa some wanted to pass a law so a woman could have multiple husbands. The men (who can have multiple wives) were shocked.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Except most mormons (same for the muslims and their multiple wives) are welfare HO's using the taxpayer to not just subsidize their lifestyle but to profit off their breeding cattle aka wives.

 

[BackAgain]

Tranquility is protected by the US Constitution.

No. It’s not.

 

[Pellinore]

No. It’s not.

Yeah, no, it isn't.

But other things are.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah, no, it isn't.

But other things are.

I know. It even says so. And I’ve seen some of those rights protected.

 

[BackAgain]

I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper government acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The Government isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”)

 

[KissMy]

No. It’s not.

You are clueless & can't even read the preamble.

 

[BackAgain]

You are clueless & can't even read the preamble.

You’re such a complete douche bag maggot moron, you think the Preamble is authoritative.

Fuck off libtard. You’re completely stupid and utterly worthless.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper government acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The Government isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.” To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes? (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”)

There is no person other than the mother in a abortion

 

[BackAgain]

There is no person other than the mother in a abortion

That’s your absolutely ignorant and erroneous belief. However, your denial of the other person doesn’t change the math. You intentionally and erroneously omit the preborn child.

 

[Vegasgiants]

That’s your absolutely ignorant and erroneous belief. However, your denial of the other person doesn’t change the math. You intentionally and erroneously omit the preborn child.

You mean fetus which has no rights of personhood.


You must first declare a fetus is a person with all the rights of personhood


Ignorant. Lol

 

[BackAgain]

You mean fetus which has no rights of personhood.


You must first declare a fetus is a person with all the rights of personhood


Ignorant. Lol

Yes. Fetus. Zygote. Preborn child. All persons. Your ignorance remains very pathetic. And you remain completely unpersuasive.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Yes. Fetus. Zygote. Preborn child. All persons. Your ignorance remains very pathetic. And you remain completely unpersuasive.

Not in the US. You are factually lying.


Personhood is a legal concept

 

[ding]

Not in the US. You are factually lying.


Personhood is a legal concept

At conception a genetically distinct new person has come into existence.

 

[westwall]

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.

Sure the 2nd does. When it was written the only cannons in the US belonged to a private organization.

You're not just wrong, but epically wrong.

 

[westwall]

In fact, Americans CAN own fighter jets ... just not armed ones.

View attachment 620924

Not true. You CAN arm them. The guy who owned Dillon reloading had a fully armed P-51 Mustang, as well as a UH-1 gunship.