Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 51,016
- 14,757
- 2,180
Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.
There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.
You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.
In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.
Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.
Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.
You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.
My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.
Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.
You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.
No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.
There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.
The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.
Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.
In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.
There is no slippery slope.
You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.
This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.
I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.
No, I'm addressing the issues of the thread: the slippery slope. The erosion of rights like marriage or abortion because of pot laws.
In any such discussion, only the actual law and actual rights are relevant. As we're attempting to predict legal outcomes. Your personal opinion on what *should* be a right is utterly irrelevant. As no court gives a shit if you personally agree with them, Marty. I've read many court rulings, many laws. You've never been cited once.
If you want to jump into the middle of a debate on the slippery slope, you can't ignore the law. And your personal opinion isn't the law.