It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.
So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.
And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.
And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?
Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.
Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.
So take your semantics games and shove it.
You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.
Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S.113 (1973), is a
landmark decision by the
United States Supreme Court on the issue of
abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case,
Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to
privacy under the
Due Process Clause of the
14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,
The Court declined to adopt the district court's
Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the
Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,
Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.[/QUOTE]
Of course it was.
"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." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.[/QUOTE]
You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?
The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the
Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,
