Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I disagree but understand why you deny it. Everyone is free to decide for themselves.
If that can be believed, then good for you.
Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
I disagree but understand why you deny it. Everyone is free to decide for themselves.
If that can be believed, then good for you.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well, we can certainly agree to disagree, but only i'm right.
The problem is that you only punish the person after he has committed harm which means your inalienable right to life was violated. Only if you can prevent the harm from occurring do you have an inalienable right.
Prohibition actually reduced alcohol consumption (look at deaths from cirrhosis of the liver), it just resulted in other criminal activities.
Still, my point is that there is no inalienable right if people can freely violate it and only suffer punishment after the fact.
Privacy is the big one, Include medical decisions birth control decisions, and could be considered to include many more personal choices. It’s interesting it’s actually a limitation on west states are allowed to do, it’s not a state or federal right, right retained by the people. Right Mary who you choose, the right to your own medical decisions, the right to a profession of your choice. I’m sure there are hunting more of these But I have a brain block right now.
Conservatives are always the ones who are against these rights but it’s the Supreme court saying the government is prohibited from making these decisions for individual. One would think a small government type would like that.
I don't agree that it is a limitation on what states are allowed to do since the entire Bill of Rights was originally written to restrict the federal government only. None of the Bill of Rights applied to the states until 1925 when a process was begun that applied most (not all) rights in the Bill of Rights to the states between 1925-2010.
I have seen some include the Pierce v. Society of Sisters in the list of privacy rights. It was a case that said parents had the right to send their children to private school when the state required they attend public school. However, the case never mentioned privacy or the 9th Amendment.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
How do you plan on preventing one person from harming another without depriving all of their rights.
Again, there's a difference between saying "You can't drink and drive" and "you can't drink because you might drive drunk". One is common sense, one is authoritarian asshattery.
What gives you the right to dictate to others how to treat their liver?
The 9th says there are more rights than enumerated by the Bill of Rights, and so the Supreme Court can prohibit States from limiting certain rights. The people are the people and the States are the States. One of those rights, as outlined in Loving v. Virginia is the right to marry who you chose.
My point is that the Federal Government has the duty to ensure the States are prohibited from infringing on certain rights retained by the People.
Marriage, health decisions, reproduction…
Is R v. W not a limitation on government power?
There are plenty of things people are allowed to do that are not in contracts. Your example makes no sense. I walk to work some days, but there’s no contract that allows me to do so…
I agree. That is why I think the inalienable rights thing is just abstract philosophy with no real meaning in practice. Government can prevent all of its citizens from exercising those rights or anybody else can deprive you of those rights. So, we may be "born" with those rights, but most of us can't exercise them. Our system restricts itself from abridging them but that has not been true of most governments for most of history.
I think Loving was based on the 14th equal protection clause and not "other rights" of the 9th Amendment. I think privacy is the only right derived from the 9th.
Agreed, but the courts have never prohibited the states from infringing on some unlisted rights retained by the people except privacy.
Yes, it limits state power but that is the only example using the 9th amendment. To make the rights in the Bill of Rights limit state power requires going through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Loving discusses both.
Privacy is very broad. It’s the broad right to freedom from excessive government interference in your private rights.
I don't see any references to the 9th in Loving.
It is not so broad as to include any specific rights other than abortion, contraception, and sodomy that I can find. One case ruled mandatory drug tests for high school students playing sports is not protected by the right to privacy.
If it is broad as you claim there should be some additional cases establishing these rights.
I’ll look tomorrow
Read Caroline Kennedy’s book, “The Right to Privacy.”