Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80843)	7/7/2004 9:07:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I say: "The Government has the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution." You respond: "The constitution grants no such right" The right not granted is the right to not be discriminated against in employment ect. because of race, religion, sex, ect. The government does indeed have the Constitutional authority to uphold and protect all Rights granted in the Constitution but the right(s) you claim where granted in the constitution where not. Since there is no constitutional recognition of such a right, there is no constitutional power given to the federal government to protect such a supposed constitutional right. The fact of the matter is that Congress HAS the authority to legislate regarding both the rights enumerated in the Constitution and those NOT enumerated. Congress and the other branches of the federal government have powers granted to them by the constitution. Congress does not constitutionally have any power not granted to it by the constitution, such as the power to protect real or alleged rights not mentioned in the constitution. If the congress did have the constitutional authority to protect anything it declares as a right then congress would have constitutional authority to do anything it wanted to do because it could declare anything to be a right. Clearly it has the authority. The 9th states clearly that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The 9th amendment recognizes that we have natural rights not mentioned in the constitution, but these are not constitutional rights. The 9th amendment is rarely invoked as a matter of law, to my knowledge it has been used to strike down no federal laws. It is a formal recognition that it isn't ok for the government to do anything that it wasn't explicitly forbidden from doing. To the extent that it has any practical effect it is a limitation on governments power not a legitimate source of an expansion of its power. It doesn't give the federal government power to protect anything it declares as a right. If it did we would have constitutionally unlimited government. The government would not have any limits on its powers if it chose to state that it was protecting some right with the exercise of these powers. Also as I said before in a previous post our constitutional rights do not demand government impose obligations for non-government agents to act to our benefit. They are rights against government actions. Initially they where legal rights only against the federal government. The "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the 14th amendment changed that and caused the rights to be applied to the states as well, and thus to local jurisdictions because they constitutionally derive any of their authority from the states. The rights do not allow us to make demands against the private sector to not fire us for what we say (1st amendment), or to sell us guns (2nd) or to not fire us from a job or kick us out of a group or club because we won't provide details of our actions against an private organizations polices (5th). In these cases where there is specific constitutional protection of a right there is no power granted to the government to enforce action on the private sector. There certainly is no such authority granted for rights not enumerated in the constitution. No particular Amendment is required to justify the Civil Rights Act or other such Acts to give people equality under the law. The ninth and the fourteenth Amendments empower such laws to be fashioned by the Constitutional authority of the Congress Such laws do not fall under the constitutional authority of congress granted by the 9th or 14th amendment, or any other part of the constitution. The 9th amendment in particular grants no authority to the federal government. Do you think that not feeding your kids is above the idea of "mistreatment". Not feeding your kids is a failure to live up to your obligation but it is not an active act against them. It is neglect not direct abuse. We are not normally legally liable for "neglecting" adults. As citizens of the State we have certain rights enumerated in the Constitution and other rights acknowledged in the Constitution but not enumerated--rights legislated into defined awareness by congressional authority The 9th amendment recognizes the existence of rights not listed in the constitution, but does not legally protect them or provide any authority to protect them. "Right", and "Rights" are words with many different meanings. Even ignoring the obviously irrelevant meanings (like a the opposite direction or side from left) the word does not mean the same thing all the time. "Constitutional rights" are a special case of the more general term "legal rights". "Natural rights" are a matter of philosophy not law. It can be argued that they place moral limitations on governments (and I would support that argument), but they grant no legal power to or legal obligation on governments. If YOUR argument holds, then you WOULD have the right to charge different prices in your store for Jews than for others (you are not "mistreating" them. They don't have to buy; they don't have to be there). Do I have the right to charge more to Jews or perhaps women or people with brown eyes? Well again we have to deal with different meanings of "the right to". I don't have a specific constitutional right to do so or a right granted by any other law. However the federal government has no constitutional authority to stop me from doing so (unless I participate in interstate commerce). States are less limited. They generally have the right to do what is not specifically forbidden them by the constitution or federal law. So Virginia could probably forbid me from such discrimination without violating the constitutional limits on its authority the federal government could not. ..... Is THAT what being a citizen of the United States with "equal rights under the law" means to you?? The relevant phrase is equal protection of the law. (Or as specifically stated in the 14th amendment "equal protection of the laws") And yes if I could charge different amounts to different racial or religious groups, or to men and women they would still have equal protection of the law, unless what I could charge was controlled by law. If the law said I could charge only up to $2 for a gallon of milk I sell to women but I could charge up to $3 when I sell to men then we would not have a situation of equal protection of the law. If I implemented such a policy my self then equal protection of the law would not be relevant. Tim