Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Pop23]

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?

None, gays were always legally able to marry.

Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not

If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?

It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

 

[Skylar]

And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

 

[paddymurphy]

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

It is not a statute, but the law is that any restrictions on the right of gays to marry that are set forth in any statute are invalid. Those statues apply as if that language is no longer present. Many southern states delayed for decades any repeal of their anti miscegenation laws. Are you suggesting that any interracial marriages entered into in those states before the repeal are not valid? You know what other law remains on the books? The portion of the ACA that allowed the federal government to punish states that did not expand medical assistance and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. As well as the law that required employers like Hobby Lobby to pay for contraceptive coverage. Are you suggesting that because congress has not repealed those laws they are still valid?

 

[Skylar]

Who is 'kim clark'?

Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.

Oops, Kim Davis

Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.

And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.

You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

 

[Pop23]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

 

[Skylar]

What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?

None, gays were always legally able to marry.

Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not

If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?

It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Pop23]

Oops, Kim Davis

Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.

And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.

You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

I gave you the link. Dispute it drama queen

 

[Skylar]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Association is behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

So I have to have a DNA test to prove I'm a Christian or a Hindu?

 

[martybegan]

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

 

[Skylar]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.

And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.

You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

I gave you the link. Dispute it drama queen

Prove that the evidence of siblings marrying is at that link.

You can't do that either. I'm starting to see why your legal predictions have a record of perfect failure: the lack of evidence.

 

[Pop23]

None, gays were always legally able to marry.

Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not

If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?

It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

 

[martybegan]

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

but that doesn't make it A law. the laws stay on the books until re-written by the legislature. More progressive "I think it is, therefore it is"

It is not a statute, but the law is that any restrictions on the right of gays to marry that are set forth in any statute are invalid. Those statues apply as if that language is no longer present. Many southern states delayed for decades any repeal of their anti miscegenation laws. Are you suggesting that any interracial marriages entered into in those states before the repeal are not valid? You know what other law remains on the books? The portion of the ACA that allowed the federal government to punish states that did not expand medical assistance and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. As well as the law that required employers like Hobby Lobby to pay for contraceptive coverage. Are you suggesting that because congress has not repealed those laws they are still valid?

they are not valid, but there was no law in force. all you have is decision holding the restrictions in place, not law.

As an example, if Roe V Wade was overturned tomorrow, abortion on demand would still be protected BY law in New York, because a law, on the books, protect it.

In some place like Alabama, it would become illegal, because the law, ON THE BOOKS, would then be in effect.

SC decisions cannot remove law, at best it can nullify it.

 

[Pop23]

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Its your claim. Back it.

Show us the evidence. Don't tell us about it.

I gave you the link. Dispute it drama queen

Prove that the evidence of siblings marrying is at that link.

You can't do that either. I'm starting to see why your legal predictions have a record of perfect failure: the lack of evidence.

False premis, the link takes you to the law, which shows the pairs excluded from marriage in iowa. No same sex pairings are excluded

Sorry Queenie, cry elsewhere

 

[bodecea]

If 'gay' is utterly irrelevant to who eligible to be marriage.....then what possible relevance would being able to 'prove' who is gay have with marriage?

It all sounds like another red herring. But then, red herrings are what trolls do.

Strawman, the idea is proof of discrimination. Blacks can, gays can't.

I don't think you get what a strawman is. I'm not attributing any argument to you. I'm pointing out that your 'standard' is irrelevant to the thread.

As 'gay' has nothing to do with anyone's eligibility to be married.

And never really did.

You just strengthened the entire point of the thread

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

 

[Skylar]

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

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

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

And your position is factually baseless, being merely your personal opinion backed with nothing. No founder backs your position. Nothing in the constitution does. With the 9th amendment explcitly contradicting you....recognizing that reserve rights need no enumeration.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[martybegan]

144 pages, basically the thread has devolved into this:

 

[bodecea]

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

But the 14th amendment also says that the government has to give EQUAL protection under the law. Does a marriage license issued by the government provide some protections? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes....then the government has to provide those protections equally. It's quite clear.

 

[paddymurphy]

And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

 

[mdk]

What would a gay test entail? Would I have to go down on my husband in front of an agent of the court before a marriage licence could be obtained?

 

[martybegan]

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

I don't see it in the bill of rights, or in the rest of the document.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

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

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

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

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

[/QUOTE]

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.