gee, that is funny. I thought the constitution specified that rights unenumerated were left up to the states or the individual, unless explicitly codified by federal legislation.
gee, that is funny. I thought the constitution specified that rights unenumerated were left up to the states or the individual, unless explicitly codified by federal legislation.
"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."
with the Ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unenumerated rights are inherent, not granted, which indicates that the government, at any level, has no power to infringe on rights, government is to protect them:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,"
So, despite the hypocrisy of the founders in their allowing slavery, rights simply exist and are not up for a vote nor approval of the SCOTUS.
No, that is the basis of liberalism and the basis of the founding of this nation:
" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
That "endowed by their Creator" statement indicates that inherent rights simply exist and are the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as James Madison wrote it.
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Assume that your supposed right to abort a fetus (something not at all viewed as a right at the time of Independence- abortion was outlawed through Europe and the Western World) was an “inalienable right” (but as I said it was not) that does not make it something the Constitution will guarantee. The Declaration was not the Constitution. And supposing abortion was such a right it is definitional that the Constitution did not affect such right. The “people” possessed it. You know, democracy. So the states would decide.
On the right to privacy, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, SCOTUS, and James Madison:
"...There is no straightforward amendment or article in the Constitution that mentions the right to privacy in the way most of us would define it...This raises two important points.
The first is that while the notion isn’t a direct part of the Bill of Rights, it is heavily implied."
"Second, this implication has allowed for an evolving process with state and federal laws that help privacy protection.
"The notion of a constitutional right to privacy is taken from an implied right via different articles and amendments. Considering these protections about freedoms and liberties, there is the idea that Americans do have a right to privacy.
There isn’t anything set in stone, though.
Essential parts of the Constitution that relate to this issue, particularly the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights."
"It is also important to note that the United States Supreme Court deliberately takes a case-by-case approach because of changing expectations, circumstances, and new ways that privacy becomes an issue."
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for sentience, mind, consciousness, it is an object. Beings have the capacity for mind, objects do not. As the woman is a being and a nonsentient fetus is an object, she has the inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to remove it as the fetus has no standing.
It is not up for a vote, it doesn't depend on your approval nor that of anyone including that of the SCOTUS. This is not hard. But you are a conservative and conservatives are incapable of understanding this and are therefore the enemy
First it is a “right” then when I show it is not, you move to a position that, well, it’s just an object so what the heck, just dump in the trash. And then you shit all over yourself by declaring me to be a conservative. You have no idea what my ideological views are, especially on the Constitution. And no idea of my views on abortion might be.
We were discussing the Constitution. But when your argument failed you tried moving in another direction. You argumentation shows you aren’t all that sentient. Perhaps you should just be tossed in the trash.
Speaking of sentient, there is likely no difference in the cognitive capability of a fetus at delivery minus one day from that of a newborn at delivery plus one day. I assume you are OK with tossing that newborn into the trash.
No, there is but one issue here, women have the inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to control their own lives that includes ending a pregnancy without any state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness.
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects do not. That is it. That you eith do not understand that or reject it is the problem with conservatives, you are illiberal by definition.
You continue your childish response of I’m right, you are wrong. Really, you ought to get some education in the art of argument and the science of analysis.
You have a limited understanding of history or the context of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These details matter!
The Constitution was created to centralize the U.S. government because the independent states were not paying their fair share under the Confederation. This was a requirement in order to pay the debt owed to the British empire after the revolutionary war. This was specifically called out in the Peace Treaty of Paris Article 4, "It is agreed that Creditors on either Side shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full Value in Sterling Money of all bona fide Debts heretofore contracted." This same thing is called out in the Constitution in Article VI, "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." To stop paying the debt would have violated our Peace Treaty with England and caused another war. George Washington knew this. He stated it in his correspondence with John Jay here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0199
The Declaration of Independence on the other hand, was simply a tort claim giving a reason why natural law dictates those who wanted to leave the crown should be allowed to. It basically says, humans should be able, using their own free will, determine their own political status. It is mostly taken from a much older document called the "Law of Nations" Please note, The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 8.
As I stated above, the Constitution was required to avoid a war. The definition of the word "Constitutor" in Black's Law Dictionary is, "One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt". Its real purpose is to outline the structure and operation of the U.S. Government. This structure included mechanisms for ensuring the international obligations of the U.S. were adhered to. The Bill of Rights was added to get it ratified. However, the Bill of Rights was never the primary purpose of the document. This is why they were all added as AMMENDMENTS...
Last thing I'll say on the Constitution, the Preamble is very misleading. Read it carefully. It is not what you think it is. You as a citizen are not a part of "The People." The People, and their posterity are essentially the those who stepped up and created the United States for the Unites States of America (straight out of the preamble). Notice these are two different entities. Citizens are something totally different. From Black's Law 6th Edition, Citizen, "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights." Notice inalienable rights are not mentioned here. Civil rights are granted. Inalienable rights are natural rights. However, we can use our free will to contract these away. Whether we know it or not. Ignorance is the ultimate enemy here.
In order to enjoy inalienable rights, a human must come out of the system and have the proper political status. It takes free will and a massive amount of responsibility to do this. Most humans simply don't have it in them. They'd rather let a government take care of the day to day international political obligations and be left alone as much as is allowed. Citizens are subjects, nothing more.
It took years of study to start to realize what's been going on from the beginning of this entire system being put in place. It took a lot of time and effort. Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to first READ anything. Second, they don't have the intelligence/critical thinking ability to really understand it.
Jeff, I've seen you state many times that Conservatives are the enemy. Conservatives have been conditioned to think Liberals are the enemy. The media does this to people. May I suggest taking a step up to a higher vantage point in an attempt to see the big picture. Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book. With the attitude you are showing, I'd say your are playing right into the hands of those who rule over the citizenry.
gee, that is funny. I thought the constitution specified that rights unenumerated were left up to the states or the individual, unless explicitly codified by federal legislation.
You're conflating the Tenth Amendment:
"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."
with the Ninth:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Unenumerated rights are inherent, not granted, which indicates that the government, at any level, has no power to infringe on rights, government is to protect them:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,"
So, despite the hypocrisy of the founders in their allowing slavery, rights simply exist and are not up for a vote nor approval of the SCOTUS.
Jeffey - “inherent rights” are by your own definition not constitutional. Sorry that democracy and the will of the people are so confusing.
No, that is the basis of liberalism and the basis of the founding of this nation:
" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed"
That "endowed by their Creator" statement indicates that inherent rights simply exist and are the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment as James Madison wrote it.
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Assume that your supposed right to abort a fetus (something not at all viewed as a right at the time of Independence- abortion was outlawed through Europe and the Western World) was an “inalienable right” (but as I said it was not) that does not make it something the Constitution will guarantee. The Declaration was not the Constitution. And supposing abortion was such a right it is definitional that the Constitution did not affect such right. The “people” possessed it. You know, democracy. So the states would decide.
This is not hard. But you seem confused.
On the right to privacy, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, SCOTUS, and James Madison:
"...There is no straightforward amendment or article in the Constitution that mentions the right to privacy in the way most of us would define it...This raises two important points.
The first is that while the notion isn’t a direct part of the Bill of Rights, it is heavily implied."
"Second, this implication has allowed for an evolving process with state and federal laws that help privacy protection.
"The notion of a constitutional right to privacy is taken from an implied right via different articles and amendments. Considering these protections about freedoms and liberties, there is the idea that Americans do have a right to privacy.
There isn’t anything set in stone, though.
Essential parts of the Constitution that relate to this issue, particularly the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights."
"It is also important to note that the United States Supreme Court deliberately takes a case-by-case approach because of changing expectations, circumstances, and new ways that privacy becomes an issue."
https://constitutionus.com/constitution/rights/the-right-to-privacy-in-the-constitution/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment
You seem incapable of elementary comprehension. Until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for sentience, mind, consciousness, it is an object. Beings have the capacity for mind, objects do not. As the woman is a being and a nonsentient fetus is an object, she has the inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to remove it as the fetus has no standing.
It is not up for a vote, it doesn't depend on your approval nor that of anyone including that of the SCOTUS. This is not hard. But you are a conservative and conservatives are incapable of understanding this and are therefore the enemy
.
Oh, jeffey, you get yourself tied in knots.
First it is a “right” then when I show it is not, you move to a position that, well, it’s just an object so what the heck, just dump in the trash. And then you shit all over yourself by declaring me to be a conservative. You have no idea what my ideological views are, especially on the Constitution. And no idea of my views on abortion might be.
We were discussing the Constitution. But when your argument failed you tried moving in another direction. You argumentation shows you aren’t all that sentient. Perhaps you should just be tossed in the trash.
Speaking of sentient, there is likely no difference in the cognitive capability of a fetus at delivery minus one day from that of a newborn at delivery plus one day. I assume you are OK with tossing that newborn into the trash.
Some advice: give up.
"First it is a “right” then when I show it is not"
LOL! In your mind! Abortion is an inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right until the fetus becomes a being at sentience:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background
Government was not empowered to restrict women's rights at any level.
Some advice: give up.
Ah, Jeffey, you are arguing in circles. You’ve given up.
No, there is but one issue here, women have the inherent, inalienable, unenumerated right to control their own lives that includes ending a pregnancy without any state interference until the fetus develops the capacity for consciousness.
Beings have mind, objects do not. Beings have rights, objects do not. That is it. That you eith do not understand that or reject it is the problem with conservatives, you are illiberal by definition.
You continue your childish response of I’m right, you are wrong. Really, you ought to get some education in the art of argument and the science of analysis.
Funny, I just used the same link above before encountering yours.
Funny, great minds!
You have a limited understanding of history or the context of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These details matter!
The Constitution was created to centralize the U.S. government because the independent states were not paying their fair share under the Confederation. This was a requirement in order to pay the debt owed to the British empire after the revolutionary war. This was specifically called out in the Peace Treaty of Paris Article 4, "It is agreed that Creditors on either Side shall meet with no lawful Impediment to the Recovery of the full Value in Sterling Money of all bona fide Debts heretofore contracted." This same thing is called out in the Constitution in Article VI, "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." To stop paying the debt would have violated our Peace Treaty with England and caused another war. George Washington knew this. He stated it in his correspondence with John Jay here: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-04-02-0199
The Declaration of Independence on the other hand, was simply a tort claim giving a reason why natural law dictates those who wanted to leave the crown should be allowed to. It basically says, humans should be able, using their own free will, determine their own political status. It is mostly taken from a much older document called the "Law of Nations" Please note, The Law of Nations is mentioned in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 8.
As I stated above, the Constitution was required to avoid a war. The definition of the word "Constitutor" in Black's Law Dictionary is, "One who, by a simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt". Its real purpose is to outline the structure and operation of the U.S. Government. This structure included mechanisms for ensuring the international obligations of the U.S. were adhered to. The Bill of Rights was added to get it ratified. However, the Bill of Rights was never the primary purpose of the document. This is why they were all added as AMMENDMENTS...
Last thing I'll say on the Constitution, the Preamble is very misleading. Read it carefully. It is not what you think it is. You as a citizen are not a part of "The People." The People, and their posterity are essentially the those who stepped up and created the United States for the Unites States of America (straight out of the preamble). Notice these are two different entities. Citizens are something totally different. From Black's Law 6th Edition, Citizen, "One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights." Notice inalienable rights are not mentioned here. Civil rights are granted. Inalienable rights are natural rights. However, we can use our free will to contract these away. Whether we know it or not. Ignorance is the ultimate enemy here.
In order to enjoy inalienable rights, a human must come out of the system and have the proper political status. It takes free will and a massive amount of responsibility to do this. Most humans simply don't have it in them. They'd rather let a government take care of the day to day international political obligations and be left alone as much as is allowed. Citizens are subjects, nothing more.
It took years of study to start to realize what's been going on from the beginning of this entire system being put in place. It took a lot of time and effort. Unfortunately, most people don't take the time to first READ anything. Second, they don't have the intelligence/critical thinking ability to really understand it.
Jeff, I've seen you state many times that Conservatives are the enemy. Conservatives have been conditioned to think Liberals are the enemy. The media does this to people. May I suggest taking a step up to a higher vantage point in an attempt to see the big picture. Divide and conquer is the oldest tactic in the book. With the attitude you are showing, I'd say your are playing right into the hands of those who rule over the citizenry.
Have a nice day!