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 (80880)	7/13/2004 2:35:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Rights...are merely agreements between rational people to treat one another to certain standards of decency in order that the Kingdom of Humanity may promote the self interest of all. We have a different opinion about this. We've also had more then one round of discussion about it and I'm not sure it would be worth revisiting at this time. "This would not be the only example of the law calling something other then what it is." Quibbling does not fade the argument. Its not quibbling. There is an important distinction to be drawn between doing something to harm someone, and not doing something to help them. Oh. So you believe that State laws against discrimination are Constitutional, but that Federal laws against discrimination are unconstitutional? Is that correct, Tim? State laws - probably constitutional in most cases. Federal laws constitutional only in certain specific contexts where the federal government is directly given authority by the constitution for example interstate commerce. Now, let us get back to the ninth: "It also says nothing about any other rights besides the right enumerated in the constitution as being protected by the constitution." That is inaccurate. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." DOES mention other rights (those which were not listed but which do exist), and it says they are protected by the Constitution. These "other rights" are constitutionally protected from DENIAL and DISPARAGEMENT. They SHALL NOT be denied or disparaged. That is clear enough, I think. No its not inaccurate. The constitution does not protect rights it does not innumerate, and the 9th amendment does not grant additional powers to the federal government. The amendment itself says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". In other words the fact that certain rights are listed doesn't mean that there are not or can not be other rights. It doesn't say anything about protecting these rights. It says the fact that some rights are listed doesn't mean it is ok for the federal government to trample on people in ways that may not be expressly forbidden to it. It limits government power to the extent that it does anything (and in practice it has done very little), but your trying to turn it in to an expansion of federal power, which is the exact opposite of its meaning. All of our constitutional rights serve as limitations on the federal government (and since incorporation most of them are limits on the state governments as well), not as ways for the feds to have more power. So why do you think they did not simply enumerate them all, Tim? Because the 9th amendment is only a general statement that its not ok for the government to trample people in unjust ways even if it doesn't expressly violate an enumerated right. At one time owning slaves was a basic “right”. It was so strongly believed to be so, that one of the bloodiest wars in human history was fought on that basis. Now most people no longer consider the owning of slaves to be their right. Slavery was not abolished by the 9th amendment either directly or through some judicial reinterpretation of what rights the 9th covers. It was abolished by the 13th amendment. Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2:Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." I have stated my approval of anti-racism laws where it affects the essential capacity of people to be citizens under the Constitution. Most anti-discrimination/anti-racism laws don't affect the essential capacity of people to be citizens under the constitution. Tim