Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[DontBeStupid]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

technically they could. If you wish to have the constitution amended, by all means amend it. Until then, we will hold to the law.

You
Are
Wrong

 

[grunt11b]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

technically they could. If you wish to have the constitution amended, by all means amend it. Until then, we will hold to the law.

You
Are
Wrong

Well if you said so, it must be true.

 

[DontBeStupid]

technically they could. If you wish to have the constitution amended, by all means amend it. Until then, we will hold to the law.

You
Are
Wrong

Well if you said so, it must be true.

Yup. Just me and the Ninth Amendment.

 

[Missourian]

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

Happy to be of service. I notice you didn't point out what I missed, so I'm left to assume you don't understand the Ninth Amendment. It happens.

Ninth Amendment basically says even if something is not spelled out in the Constitution, we still have the right to it. For example, no where does the Constitution say Paris Hilton can make a sex tape and carry a dog in a purse, but, clearly she has that right and can exercise that right.

That may be the damn dumbest thing you've ever posted...and that's saying something.

The state government could at any time make a law that proclaimed carrying a dog in a container that is not government approved for that purpose illegal.

It is not a right to either make a sex tape or carry a dog in a purse.

 

[Texanmike]

It doesn't grant any specific rights to anyone

None of the Bill of Rights do. Which is odd you would say that, since you're the big Constitutional expert and all, right?

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

So DBS,

Tell me. Can you explain the origin of the 9th Amendment? Can you refute anything I've said? You can't.

That's the problem with the way most people, on both sides, argue about the Constitution. If you want to be objective then go back, read the debates from the time of ratification and you can at least establish what the possible arguments about the subject are. You will find that there are things that you like and things that you don't like but at least you will know the real arguments. Instead you quote what a Justice said 200 years later or what a scholar said based on what a justice said who based his opinion on someone who made a decision 100 years after it was written. Tell me, who do you think is a more reliable source? Looking at what Hamilton and Mason argued against one another or what 9 guys in black robes, who were appointed because they would rule one way or another, argued a century later?

Mike

 

[DontBeStupid]

So DBS,

Tell me. Can you explain the origin of the 9th Amendment? Can you refute anything I've said? You can't.

That's the problem with the way most people, on both sides, argue about the Constitution. If you want to be objective then go back, read the debates from the time of ratification and you can at least establish what the possible arguments about the subject are. You will find that there are things that you like and things that you don't like but at least you will know the real arguments. Instead you quote what a Justice said 200 years later or what a scholar said based on what a justice said who based his opinion on someone who made a decision 100 years after it was written. Tell me, who do you think is a more reliable source? Looking at what Hamilton and Mason argued against one another or what 9 guys in black robes, who were appointed because they would rule one way or another, argued a century later?

Mike

Except, I'm not quoting a justice. Did you just copy and paste your old post?

And still, you have not said how the Ninth does not apply here. The origin of it has no bearing in whether it applies. It applies and you refuse to even discuss it!

That speaks volumes.

 

[grunt11b]

You
Are
Wrong

Well if you said so, it must be true.

Yup. Just me and the Ninth Amendment.

If it's not in the constitution, it is left for the states to decide, by ballot. If your 9th amendment mumbo jumbo was worth a shit, california would not have had to vote on gay marriage 2 times in the last 8 years, would it have? The state, being led by pro gay marriage politicians would have just implemented it right? But they didn't. your 9th amendment argument is ridiculous, just because you think something should be a right that isn't specified in the constitution does not make it automatically a right.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't grant any specific rights to anyone

None of the Bill of Rights do. Which is odd you would say that, since you're the big Constitutional expert and all, right?

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Well if you said so, it must be true.

Yup. Just me and the Ninth Amendment.

If it's not in the constitution, it is left for the states to decide, by ballot. If your 9th amendment mumbo jumbo was worth a shit, california would not have had to vote on gay marriage 2 times in the last 8 years, would it have? The state, being led by pro gay marriage politicians would have just implemented it right? But they didn't.

I don't know why you guys keep coming back to marriage equality. Marriage laws are about granting legal privileges to certain couples. It has nothing to do with physically preventing two people from being together. Two gay men could marry in Texas. There is nothing the state could do to stop them. Those men just wouldn't get the privileges of hetero couples.

See the difference?

 

[Texanmike]

So DBS,

Tell me. Can you explain the origin of the 9th Amendment? Can you refute anything I've said? You can't.

That's the problem with the way most people, on both sides, argue about the Constitution. If you want to be objective then go back, read the debates from the time of ratification and you can at least establish what the possible arguments about the subject are. You will find that there are things that you like and things that you don't like but at least you will know the real arguments. Instead you quote what a Justice said 200 years later or what a scholar said based on what a justice said who based his opinion on someone who made a decision 100 years after it was written. Tell me, who do you think is a more reliable source? Looking at what Hamilton and Mason argued against one another or what 9 guys in black robes, who were appointed because they would rule one way or another, argued a century later?

Mike

Except, I'm not quoting a justice. Did you just copy and paste your old post?

And still, you have not said how the Ninth does not apply here. The origin of it has no bearing in whether it applies. It applies and you refuse to even discuss it!

That speaks volumes.

Of course it matters.

The amendment was only inserted to say that by giving certain rights does not mean that all rights must be enumerated. It does not mean that you can use it any way you like. You cannot declare that you have a right to something and assume that it cannot be forbade. Lets not forget that the purpose of the BoR was to prevent the tyranny of the federal government. Of course you don't know that because your legal understanding starts after the Marshal court.

Mike

 

[grunt11b]

None of the Bill of Rights do. Which is odd you would say that, since you're the big Constitutional expert and all, right?

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I'd say where it says it shall not abridge freedom of speech would be a pretty good indicator that you have the right to free speech.

 

[grunt11b]

Yup. Just me and the Ninth Amendment.

If it's not in the constitution, it is left for the states to decide, by ballot. If your 9th amendment mumbo jumbo was worth a shit, california would not have had to vote on gay marriage 2 times in the last 8 years, would it have? The state, being led by pro gay marriage politicians would have just implemented it right? But they didn't.

I don't know why you guys keep coming back to marriage equality. Marriage laws are about granting legal privileges to certain couples. It has nothing to do with physically preventing two people from being together. Two gay men could marry in Texas. There is nothing the state could do to stop them. Those men just wouldn't get the privileges of hetero couples.

See the difference?

It's not about gay marriage dopey, but is similar to contraception ban being that is is also not covered in the constitution and is a states issue. I am sure you understood that though but tried derailing my argument because you know you're wrong.

 

[Texanmike]

None of the Bill of Rights do. Which is odd you would say that, since you're the big Constitutional expert and all, right?

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I have never argued we have the right to free speech. Of course you knew that. There is a declaration of the right to bear arms.... do I need more examples?

You are looking for gotcha statements instead of learning something. I think we are done.

Mike

 

[DontBeStupid]

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I'd say where it says it shall not abridge freedom of speech would be a pretty good indicator that you have the right to free speech.

You didn't answer the question. Let me help you.

Do I have the right to free speech? (as endowed by my Creator)

or

Does the Constitution give me the right to free speech? (which it could then take away)

 

[Texanmike]

Yup. Just me and the Ninth Amendment.

If it's not in the constitution, it is left for the states to decide, by ballot. If your 9th amendment mumbo jumbo was worth a shit, california would not have had to vote on gay marriage 2 times in the last 8 years, would it have? The state, being led by pro gay marriage politicians would have just implemented it right? But they didn't.

I don't know why you guys keep coming back to marriage equality. Marriage laws are about granting legal privileges to certain couples. It has nothing to do with physically preventing two people from being together. Two gay men could marry in Texas. There is nothing the state could do to stop them. Those men just wouldn't get the privileges of hetero couples.

See the difference?

And you're wrong. Marriage laws include incest laws. That has nothing to do with property, it has everything to do with the bedroom. Nice try.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I'd say where it says it shall not abridge freedom of speech would be a pretty good indicator that you have the right to free speech.

You didn't answer the question. Let me help you.

Do I have the right to free speech? (as endowed by my Creator)

or

Does the Constitution give me the right to free speech? (which it could then take away)

And right there is the entire meaning of the 9th amendment.

Oh, and you baited me into it. I never used the word but I let you goad me into "gives us our rights". The Constitution enumerates some of our rights. It does not grant them to us. THAT is the reason the 9th Amendment was included in the BoR.

I really don't care for "gotcha" arguments. I could teach you quite a bit, you'd be surprised, because I've been reading 200 year old books for the last 2 or 3 years, not allowing my views to be corrupted by 200 years of politics... but you are stuck on proving an idea that was never intended. You will declare that everything which you see fit is a right... Someone has the right to birth control, abortion, drug use, marriage etc. but not to their own wages. So be it.

Mike

 

[DontBeStupid]

Check that. They certainly do. Go reread them. Then explain why they don't mean what they say.

Mike

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I have never argued we have the right to free speech. Of course you knew that. There is a declaration of the right to bear arms.... do I need more examples?

You are looking for gotcha statements instead of learning something. I think we are done.

Mike

If you want to leave, that's fine, but you're wrong on this.

The Second Amendment does NOT give you the right to bear arms. It says your right shall not be abridged. There is a difference there that you are either not grasping or choosing to ignore. It is this difference which is what is making you fundamentally not understand the Ninth Amendment, and I would suspect, not understand the Constitution as a whole.

 

[grunt11b]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I'd say where it says it shall not abridge freedom of speech would be a pretty good indicator that you have the right to free speech.

You didn't answer the question. Let me help you.

Do I have the right to free speech? (as endowed by my Creator)

or

Does the Constitution give me the right to free speech? (which it could then take away)

As a United States citizen the constitution gives me the right to free speech. Although I believe it is also endowed by my creator, so did the founding fathers who wrote the laws in the constitution off of the same beliefs that our rights are endowed to us by our creator.

 

[grunt11b]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please, Mike, tell us all the section there that says the Constitution gives me the right to free speech.

Take your time.

I have never argued we have the right to free speech. Of course you knew that. There is a declaration of the right to bear arms.... do I need more examples?

You are looking for gotcha statements instead of learning something. I think we are done.

Mike

If you want to leave, that's fine, but you're wrong on this.

The Second Amendment does NOT give you the right to bear arms. It says your right shall not be abridged. There is a difference there that you are either not grasping or choosing to ignore. It is this difference which is what is making you fundamentally not understand the Ninth Amendment, and I would suspect, not understand the Constitution as a whole.

If it was not a right, the gun grabbers would have came for them long ago.