Con Law - Lesson 1 "The Preamble"

Flash said:
I think the point was that a state cannot discriminate unless it has a compelling reason. Since marriage is a basic right for humans there is no legitimate reason to deny a person that right based on race.

I looked at the Kennedy book and she did take a very broad approach to privacy. She did not use the right to privacy in the 9th amendment but privacy as it is protected by other rights--especially the 4th search and seizure and 1st right of association. The 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th were cited in Roe as support for the right to privacy in the 9th as illustration that the founders meant to protect our privacy.
Click to expand...

True. But I believe you could not have the Right to Privacy without at least the idea expressed by the 9th. It didn’t have to be codified by the 9th, but since it is it’s that much stronger.
 
Jarod said:
It’s stupid to call any right inalienable when a court can take a right away, if a court can sentence someone to death, all rights are alienable.
Click to expand...

But the courts must use due process. If I can steal from you or murder you there is no right to life or property because others can take it away. They can still take it away even if we punish them for it afterward, but we are hoping it will deter them or others from doing so. If they are imprisoned or executed they cannot deprive others of those rights.

But, I agree. That is why I question the concept of inalienable rights. First, we cannot identify what they include (abortion?), and second, we cannot prevent someone from taking those rights from you.

In practice, we must determine what rights society wants to guarantee and restrict government from infringing on those rights.
 
Flash said:
I don't know any. My point is that government or someone blocks most of these inalienable for most people. In most countries people don't have free speech to criticize the government; so, the inalienable right of free speech is not really inalienable.
Click to expand...

Most? What am I limited by right now? Only not to harm others or engage in behavior that harms others. So, no, I can't speed 100MPH through a neighborhood with kids in the street. No, I can't fire a bullet into the air near populated areas.

The main rule is "don't harm or risk anyone". This is why I think Rittenhouse was guilty of reckless endangerment by firing into a crowd. He had a right to defend himself, but not to endanger others. Wisconsin disagrees.

The good news is that, per the Rittenhouse rule, if I see someone with a rifle shoot another person and firing into a crowd, I can shoot them and walk....at least in Wisconsin. LOL
 
BidenPresident said:
Yes, most nations get along fine without a free speech clause. The whole free speech thing is pretty trivial, as I see it.
Click to expand...

Most nations do not allow free speech to criticize or oppose the government. I don't see that as trivial since it is the main topic of this message board and political debate.
 
Flash said:
Most nations do not allow free speech to criticize or oppose the government. I don't see that as trivial since it is the main topic of this message board and political debate.
Click to expand...

Yes, right wingers using free speech to say our government should be violently overthrown. Which is a felony. And don't bother lying about it not being a felony.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the constitution is a legal document. you should understand the term legal and document. Imagine being a lawyer making an argument in court that your client should be able to do some things that are not actually in the contract, but it doesn't specifically exclude them.........how many judges would laugh you out of the courtroom?
Click to expand...

Remember that Jarod thinks he's a lawyer. :laugh:
 
Jarod said:
True. But I believe you could not have the Right to Privacy without at least the idea expressed by the 9th. It didn’t have to be codified by the 9th, but since it is it’s that much stronger.
Click to expand...

Any codification of the 9th is very limited--contraception, abortion, and sodomy between homosexuals. The sodomy case was based on the liberty of the due process clause and less on the 9th.
 
AssHatZombie said:
trespassing.
Click to expand...

I guess it suddenly isn't against the law to trespass?

But lest you forget, this is how many of them entered the building - This wasn't simply wandering into a building that they didn't know they shouldn't be in.
90
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess it suddenly isn't against the law to trespass?

But lest you forget, this is how many of them entered the building - This wasn't simply wandering into a building that they didn't know they shouldn't be in.
90
Click to expand...

it is. but it's not an insurrection.

im sure the capitol police acting like everything was fine with people walking around after the initial breach was confusing to some strollers.
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
Yes, right wingers using free speech to say our government should be violently overthrown. Which is a felony. And don't bother lying about it not being a felony.
Click to expand...

It is not a felony unless some action is taken toward achieving that end. The courts have made it clear advocacy is pure speech and protected. That is not a lie but a Supreme Court decision which supersedes previous decisions allowing such convictions.

Does your claim also apply to left-wingers?
 
Flash said:
It is not a felony unless some action is taken toward achieving that end. The courts have made it clear advocacy is pure speech and protected. That is not a lie but a Supreme Court decision which supersedes previous decisions allowing such convictions.

Does your claim also apply to left-wingers?
Click to expand...

Wrong. You lie too much, it's boring.
 
Flash said:
But the courts must use due process. If I can steal from you or murder you there is no right to life or property because others can take it away. They can still take it away even if we punish them for it afterward, but we are hoping it will deter them or others from doing so. If they are imprisoned or executed they cannot deprive others of those rights.

But, I agree. That is why I question the concept of inalienable rights. First, we cannot identify what they include (abortion?), and second, we cannot prevent someone from taking those rights from you.

In practice, we must determine what rights society wants to guarantee and restrict government from infringing on those rights.
Click to expand...

No, you have the right, but with due process that right can be taken away. It’s simply not an inalienable right, it is an alienable right. The right to free speech for example is also alienable, when it comes into conflict with your right to not be the victim of a stampede in a theater where somebody yelled fire even though there was not one.

There are no absolute rights.
 
Flash said:
Any codification of the 9th is very limited--contraception, abortion, and sodomy between homosexuals. The sodomy case was based on the liberty of the due process clause and less on the 9th.
Click to expand...

Yes, but with due process now there is an easier way to get there.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Most? What am I limited by right now? Only not to harm others or engage in behavior that harms others. So, no, I can't speed 100MPH through a neighborhood with kids in the street. No, I can't fire a bullet into the air near populated areas.

The main rule is "don't harm or risk anyone". This is why I think Rittenhouse was guilty of reckless endangerment by firing into a crowd. He had a right to defend himself, but not to endanger others. Wisconsin disagrees.

The good news is that, per the Rittenhouse rule, if I see someone with a rifle shoot another person and firing into a crowd, I can shoot them and walk....at least in Wisconsin. LOL
Click to expand...

There was no reckless endangerment. Slander.
 
Jarod said:
No, you have the right, but with due process that right can be taken away. It’s simply not an inalienable right, it is an alienable right. The right to free speech for example is also alienable, when it comes into conflict with your right to not be the victim of a stampede in a theater where somebody yelled fire even though there was not one.

There are no absolute rights.
Click to expand...

I have already described several of them. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top