Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/5/2012 3:32:24 PM EDT
1. Not every right is enumerated in the constitution.

So the argument "but I don't see XXXX in th' constitution, but muh guns are" is complete and total BULL SHIT.

READ THE GODDAMN NINTH MOTHER FUCKING AMENDMENT

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


2. Your rights are yours, they are not "granted" by the constitution or the government.


That is all.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:33:24 PM EDT
In one this one. It haz potential.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:35:29 PM EDT
Actually, it is a permission slip. For the Federal government.

Think about what the word "constitution" means. What is constituted by the Constitution of 1787? The people or the Federal government?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:36:23 PM EDT
Pneumbral Rights like the right to marry or procreate. These things were viewed as God given and therefore unnecessary to be included in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:39:19 PM EDT
I still think you should need a permit to have children. Jus sayin
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:44:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it is a permission slip. For the Federal government.

Think about what the word "constitution" means. What is constituted by the Constitution of 1787? The people or the Federal government?


Exactly.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:44:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 3:45:08 PM EDT by MotorMouth]
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:48:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."

So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


The Constitution prohibits the violation of unenumerated rights. There are so many things which can be considered rights under the predominant political philosophy at the time and under the common law that it was totally impractical to list them, although courts until the 20th century often recognized such rights, such as the right to travel freely or the right to contract freely, both infringed upon heavily these days with the blessing of the courts.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:51:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:51:25 PM EDT
The constitution merely enumerates, codifies and INSTITUTIONALIZES already recognized natural rights of the free man.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:51:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:53:37 PM EDT
Where's my popcorn, I'm watching this one...
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:54:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 3:55:11 PM EDT by krpind]
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:56:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 4v50:
Pneumbral Rights like the right to marry or procreate. These things were viewed as God given and therefore unnecessary to be included in the Constitution.


Way too complicated for most motherfuckers. Just give them a list* of EVERYTHING that may and may not do in any and all circumstances.

* Yes that would be one big list.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 3:56:23 PM EDT
In before you proles are corrected.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:01:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pilotman:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it is a permission slip. For the Federal government.

Think about what the word "constitution" means. What is constituted by the Constitution of 1787? The people or the Federal government?


Exactly.


Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:04:55 PM EDT
See how fast someone gets locked up or put in front of a firing squad in China or North Korea while still using the defense that they have a "right" to freedom of speech....
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:08:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
See how fast someone gets locked up or put in front of a firing squad in China or North Korea while still using the defense that they have a "right" to freedom of speech....


It doesn't mean they don't have the right, just that someone with more power is willing and physically able to infringe upon it. A government with enough power can violate any rights it wants to, practically speaking.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:09:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
Originally Posted By 4v50:
Pneumbral Rights like the right to marry or procreate. These things were viewed as God given and therefore unnecessary to be included in the Constitution.


Way too complicated for most motherfuckers. Just give them a list* of EVERYTHING that may and may not do in any and all circumstances.

* Yes that would be one big list.


Pretty much how the Army seems to operate ....

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:10:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By speedfreak955:
In before you proles are corrected.


Dave_A's not here, man ...
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:11:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
Originally Posted By 4v50:
Pneumbral Rights like the right to marry or procreate. These things were viewed as God given and therefore unnecessary to be included in the Constitution.


Way too complicated for most motherfuckers. Just give them a list* of EVERYTHING that may and may not do in any and all circumstances.

* Yes that would be one big list.


Pretty much how the Army seems to operate ....



Some States already operate on this principle, I believe, i.e. that everything is prohibited unless it is explicitly allowed. Horrible way to set up a government though and it pretty much says that the people who created the government don't believe you have any rights.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:11:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By speedfreak955:
In before you proles are corrected.


Dave_A's not here, man ...



Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:17:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By speedfreak955:
In before you proles are corrected.


Dave_A's not here, man ...


Not so sure....
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:25:31 PM EDT
It is all "interpretation" by the Supreme Court of the United States. It says whatever they say it says, unless we say different and change the government.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:37:42 PM EDT
OP, I whole heartedly agree with you, in principle.

Unfortunately,

We have exactly as many rights as we are willing to take, keep by force, kill and die for.

I give you: The current government and all the laws, regulations, tax code, alphabet soup agencies, etc etc etc AS COMPARED TO: The freedom known and experienced by the indians, frontiersman, settlers, or any other person out of the reaches of liberty stomping federal (or any other) government.

I don't mean to say that our constitution is not probably the best form of government devised by humans, so far. But, to say we are currently free, or even living under what was originally intended under the constitution, would be a lie.

We are not willing to give up such a cushy life to do what is right. People don't want liberty or freedom. They want comfort, TV, a six pack and the perception of freedom and security/safety.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:43:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 4:45:18 PM EDT by MotorMouth]
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:46:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Yours is a moot point, given that there is an amendment which specifically states the opposite of what you just said.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 4:53:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:04:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 5:04:35 PM EDT by MotorMouth]
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:10:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


This kind of thinking is why some founding fathers were against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:12:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TUBBY:
It is all "interpretation" by the Supreme Court of the United States. It says whatever they say it says, unless we say different and change the government.


There are no interpretive powers delegated to the SCOTUS....or anybody for that matter.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:13:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?



The wording of the ninth amendment couldn't be any clearer. You don't need outside sources to see that. "Spirit of the law" and all that.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:22:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pilotman:
1. Not every right is enumerated in the constitution.

So the argument "but I don't see XXXX in th' constitution, but muh guns are" is complete and total BULL SHIT.

READ THE GODDAMN NINTH MOTHER FUCKING AMENDMENT

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


2. Your rights are yours, they are not "granted" by the constitution or the government.


That is all.


Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:24:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?



The presence of the 9th actually makes him a strict constructionist.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:25:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:26:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?



By outside source, I assume you mean Mr. Madison, who wrote the amendment we're now discussing?

I'll let him speak for me:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.


That clause was eventually edited down into this, the 9th Amendment of the Constitution.

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

There's the clear wording of it and the testimony of the man who wrote it. It says the constitution enumerates (names) certain rights. And that naming shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people (which is what you're doing in this thread.)

But I guess Madison was just another constitutional revisionist. Oh wait, he was. Because he actually helped write and revise the document.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:28:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?



The presence of the 9th actually makes him a strict constructionist.


I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:30:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 5:31:00 PM EDT by Rick-OShay]
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By Rick-OShay:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By sigp226:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Everyone seems to forget that we do not have any "constitutional rights;" zero, nada, none. What we have are "constitutionally protected rights."





So, OP if it ain't in the constitution, and, therefore, it ain't protected. Capiche?


Actually, no. You have it exactly backwards.


Actually, yes, but try to make your case.

ETA: Explain to me how a right not protected by the constitution is protected by the constitution.


The flaw in your logic is that because a right is not specifically mentioned by name, it must therefore be unprotected.

The Feds and anti-Feds wrangled about this very subject. Here's the 10 cent summary:

Federalists: "We don't need a bill of rights. If we added a bill of rights to the constitution, people might get the idea that only those specific rights named in it were protected."

Anti-Federalists: "With no mention of rights at all, the naturally tendency of government will be to infringe. Nevertheless, let us spell out even those unenumerated rights specifically."
Hence, the 9th Amendment.

As it turns out, both sides were absolutely right. Their only error was in not making the bill of rights a 10,000 page document detailing each little thing the Federal government was forbidden to do.


So, you're not a strict constructionist. You're one of those living document types.

If it's not in the constitution, it's not protected by the constitution. You can argue all of the outside sources you want, but the minute you bring up those outside sources, you've already lost the argument.
If you bring in outside references to do anything other than define or interpret the actual words in the Constitution, you open it up to saying whatever you want it to say, so in that case, why even have a written constititution?



The presence of the 9th actually makes him a strict constructionist.


I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


The ghost of Dave_A is trollin' this joint HARD today ....

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:31:48 PM EDT

Someone should dig up Dave_A's multi-page explanation about how the 10th amendment actually means the exact opposite of what it says and in reality grants the government the power to do anything it wants to.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:32:51 PM EDT
The U.S. Constitution is NOT a living document; which is arbitrary & open to reinterpretation.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:33:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FeebMaster:

Someone should dig up Dave_A's multi-page explanation about how the 10th amendment actually means the exact opposite of what it says and in reality grants the government the power to do anything it wants to.



I've had a headache for two days. Please.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:34:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:35:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it is a permission slip. For the Federal government.

Think about what the word "constitution" means. What is constituted by the Constitution of 1787? The people or the Federal government?


Exactly. For example, he 2A doesn't GIVE the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms, it RESTRICTS the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon those rights.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:37:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.


If I had a dictionary from 1790 this would be easier.

But Webster's will have to suffice for now:

Definition of DISPARAGE
transitive verb
1
: to lower in rank or reputation : degrade
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:42:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
OP, I whole heartedly agree with you, in principle.

Unfortunately,

We have exactly as many rights as we are willing to take, keep by force, kill and die for.

I give you: The current government and all the laws, regulations, tax code, alphabet soup agencies, etc etc etc AS COMPARED TO: The freedom known and experienced by the indians, frontiersman, settlers, or any other person out of the reaches of liberty stomping federal (or any other) government.

I don't mean to say that our constitution is not probably the best form of government devised by humans, so far. But, to say we are currently free, or even living under what was originally intended under the constitution, would be a lie.

We are not willing to give up such a cushy life to do what is right. People don't want liberty or freedom. They want comfort, TV, a six pack and the perception of freedom and security/safety.


This.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:46:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2012 5:47:01 PM EDT by MotorMouth]
Originally Posted By pilotman:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.


If I had a dictionary from 1790 this would be easier.

But Webster's will have to suffice for now:

Definition of DISPARAGE
transitive verb
1
: to lower in rank or reputation : degrade



Yes, if its not in the constitution, it's not lowered in rank, degraded, disparaged, or restricted by the constitution.

My point is if it's not in there, it's not protected by the constitution, either.

So, here we are again. Me, agreeing with your OP, the constitution is not a permissions slip, but disagreeing that about it protecting rights it doesn't mention.

Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:46:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 03shooter:
Originally Posted By Ridgerunner9876:
OP, I whole heartedly agree with you, in principle.

Unfortunately,

We have exactly as many rights as we are willing to take, keep by force, kill and die for.

I give you: The current government and all the laws, regulations, tax code, alphabet soup agencies, etc etc etc AS COMPARED TO: The freedom known and experienced by the indians, frontiersman, settlers, or any other person out of the reaches of liberty stomping federal (or any other) government.

I don't mean to say that our constitution is not probably the best form of government devised by humans, so far. But, to say we are currently free, or even living under what was originally intended under the constitution, would be a lie.

We are not willing to give up such a cushy life to do what is right. People don't want liberty or freedom. They want comfort, TV, a six pack and the perception of freedom and security/safety.


This.



Heinlein put it best:

The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time, and with utter recklessness.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:47:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TUBBY:
It is all "interpretation" by the Supreme Court of the United States. It says whatever they say it says, unless we say different and change the government.


That may be the current practice, but that's not how it's supposed to work. If something is constitutional, it was always constitutional; likewise with unconstitutionality. The courts may be wrong or right in their rulings in that context.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:51:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By pilotman:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.


If I had a dictionary from 1790 this would be easier.

But Webster's will have to suffice for now:

Definition of DISPARAGE
transitive verb
1
: to lower in rank or reputation : degrade



Yes, if its not in the constitution, it's not lowered in rank, degraded, disparaged, or restricted by the constitution.

My point is if it's not in there, it's not protected by the constitution, either.

So, here we are again. Me, agreeing with your OP, the constitution is not a permissions slip, but disagreeing that about it protecting rights it doesn't mention.



If it's not in the constitution, that does not give the government license or power to violate those unenumerated rights. To infringe upon them is still unlawful. They may not be explicitly protected, but they are still protected when all of the relevant elements in the constitution are taken as a whole.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:54:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.


Facepalmingly willful ignorance.
Link Posted: 1/5/2012 5:55:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigstick61:

Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By pilotman:
Originally Posted By MotorMouth:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
I've just about concluded there's a strong contingent of crack smokers on arfcom GD.


I concur.

For those still along for the ride:

The 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So, the non-enumerated rights are protected by this language? No, it is not. It merely states that their exclusion form this document neither denies nor disparages. It does not protect them.

The 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Once more. Nonenumerated rights are reserved to the States or the people, but they are not protected by the constitution.


If I had a dictionary from 1790 this would be easier.

But Webster's will have to suffice for now:

Definition of DISPARAGE
transitive verb
1
: to lower in rank or reputation : degrade



Yes, if its not in the constitution, it's not lowered in rank, degraded, disparaged, or restricted by the constitution.

My point is if it's not in there, it's not protected by the constitution, either.

So, here we are again. Me, agreeing with your OP, the constitution is not a permissions slip, but disagreeing that about it protecting rights it doesn't mention.



If it's not in the constitution, that does not give the government license or power to violate those unenumerated rights. I agree.

To infringe upon them is still unlawful. Maybe. Maybe not.

They may not be explicitly protected, but they are still protected when all of the relevant elements in the constitution are taken as a whole. I disagree.


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top