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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (94607)	1/10/2005 9:50:29 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793790

What you're calling "rhetorical support" is the stated purpose of the amendment. The stated purpose expressed in a law is little more than a means of rhetorically supporting the active clause unless there is a statement applying the purpose in some way. Giving a reason for a law doesn't limit it to that reason,. If the 1st amendment was written differently instead of - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." You might have had 2 amendments - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. and The right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances being of vital importance; congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The meaning of those two amendments would be exactly the same. The fact that petitioning the government would be the stated reason for the amendment would not mean that free speech which doesn't petition the government was no protected. For more see wagc-ga.com or bladeforums.com The constitution doesn't suggest that our rights are limited to what's in the constitution, either, like privacy...<gggg I'm glad you put the gg's in. Actually the constitution directly expresses that our rights are not limited to what is enumerated in the constitution. Still I don't think you could properly call any unremunerated right a constitutional right. I believe the reason for this statement "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (9th amendment) was to provide support to the fight against unjust laws even if no constitutionally protected right is violated. I think the 9th amendment could be used to argue in favor of keeping abortion legal (of course you have to assume that abortion is somehow a natural right and/or that any laws against it are unjust) but not that it is a constitutional right. I don't think the 9th makes anything a constitutional right. Tim