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 (80884)	7/15/2004 6:20:58 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

"Maybe impeding someone else from purchasing goods and services should be a criminal offense" It would depend on degree which is one of the points I have been trying to get you to understand. One of the main points I have been trying to get you to understand is that is that not selling goods to someone isn't the same thing as impeding them from buying goods. "It would be a refutable rather then an absolute presumption. There may be a reason why person X is so obligated" Now we are getting somewhere. I would put the bar very high for any refutation to be accepted. The presumption would be a very strong one. Both the Legislative and Judicial branches of law have laboriously carved out the lines between legitimate discrimination and discrimination which violates essential rights and freedoms. No they haven't. They have decided that they don't want certain forms of discrimination and so they made them illegal. Many of the outlawed practices don't violate anyone's rights and in fact making the practice illegal violates the natural and in some cases constitutional rights of the people who do or might discriminate in ways that go against these laws. 1). The right of people not to be enslaved IS A RIGHT. Agreed. Natural right. But not a constitutional right, even an unenumerated one before or without the 13th amendment. 3). The fact that the right of people not to be enslaved is not enumerated in the Constitution is not a basis for denying or disparaging that RIGHT. Agreed, but there is no constitutional obligation for the government to protect any such right. If it is not enumerated it gives the government no obligation or authority to do anything about it. The first group then explains to them that the Constitution expressly forbids (SHALL NOT) the denial and disparagement of rights which are not listed. The constitution does not expressly forbid the denial and disparagement of "unlisted" rights. It only says that nothing about the listing of rights shall be construed as to deny or disparage other rights. It doesn't say anyone in or out of the government is forbidden from denying or disparaging any such right. Even when you are talking about enumerated rights the government doesn't have the obligation or power to prevent private citizens from disparaging them or from not helping you exercise them. You have the right to free speech but if I wished I have the right to say the first amendment is stupid or to say "Solon doesn't have the right to free speech", or to block you from posting on a thread I moderate, or to ask the editors of the New York Times not to publish a letter you send them. 1). Which Rights "retained by the people" are NOT listed in the Constitution? a). Rights protecting against the Federal Government? b). Rights protecting against State Governments? c). Rights of people in relation to other people? d). Rights of all people against alien creatures? e). All of the above? f). None of the above. There are no Rights listed in the ninth amendment, therefore they don't exist. A or F, or just possibly B. F in the sense that the 9th amendment grants no constitutional rights, so constitutionally protected rights from the 9th amendment don't exist. But the general unenumerated and unprotected rights would clearly be rights against the federal government or A. Since they are not enumerated or constitutionally protected rights I don't see how incorporation would extend them to the states but the list of all natural rights not mentioned by the constitution would include rights against the states so in that sense the answer is B. 2). The word "others" in the Ninth Amendment refers to: a). Slaves recently freed? b). Landowners with more than 3 horses? c). Rights? d). Everything made of plastic? c but not constitutional rights but rather natural rights that enjoy no legal protection by the constitution, and even these are not spelled out. 3). The framers of the Constitution referred to unspecified Rights because: a). They wanted to make a Ninth Amendment? b). They didn't feel like listing them? c). They didn't want to close the door on the ability of each generation to exercise wisdom and prudence in the dynamics of Rights involved in evolving human society and civilization. d). There was a shortage of cotton sacks and smog was becoming an International issue? The best answer would be none of the above. If I had to pick one of those I would say C but it isn't a perfect fit, at least not in the sense that I think you mean to give it. They did want to limit the federal governments powers to those powers granted in the constitution, and not to protecting anything that anyone later decides is a right. They did not intend the 9th amendment to be an avenue to expand government power in the name of protecting real or imagined unenumerated rights. But they did want to make clear that the constitution was not saying the human rights are just limited to what the constitution explicitly states, and that they where not saying that the government would be automatically respecting peoples rights if it didn't violate any of the explicitly stated rights. 4). "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." means None of the above. None of your multiple choice answers is correct. It means that the fact that the constitution protects some rights does not mean other rights (in the sense of natural rights) do not exist. In other words the constitution's listing or rights is not a limitation on human rights. It is only a limitation on what the constitution protects. If we want to change that limitation we can always amend the constitution. For example when the 13th amendment was ratified it expanded constitutional rights. The 9th amendment recognizes that when we ratify such an amendment we do not really create a new right, we just create recognition of and constitutional protection for the right. 5). The Ninth Amendment was written because: Again D fits better then the other answers but it isn't perfect. IMO (any statement about why someone did something is likely to be speculation and opinion) the amendment was passed not to constitutionally protect any rights, or to allow future generations to recognize new rights and decide that they have constitutional protection without amendment. It was merely to make clear that the list of constitutionally protected rights was not an exhaustive listing of natural rights. Tim