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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4140)	1/1/2017 2:36:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361309

You didn't answer my question, at least not the question I intended. This is the closest you got to an answer: I suppose you could limit it to rights where these is a strong durable consensus, but that just doesn't seem like much of a concrete coherent and easily applicable constitutional theory to me. We have a choice of how we can interpret the Constitution. I was asking why you would choose to interpret so skimpily wrt rights when you could choose otherwise. Just because it is more concrete? Easier to apply? My take on the Enlightenment and our founding documents is that essential human dignity was a right, a natural right. I listed what I consider to be first and second order elements of essential human dignity. Opting for first and second order only is conservative. Views on basic human rights are sometimes more expansive but I think a conservative drawing is both necessary and coherent. I can see why you would object to the addition of positive rights, but I was suggesting only negative ones, very, very basic negative ones. The 9th seems to be saying that something should not be denied as a right just because it isn't enumerated by the constitution, but it doesn't say anything about the constitution requiring protection of those rights (or what those rights are) It would be redundant, would it not, to specify that rights both may not be denied plus must be protected? If a state legislates a violation of a claimed but not enumerated right and that legislation is challenged on grounds of rights, the court would have to assure that a legitimate right was not being denied. So, it's deciding whether there is a right there that cannot be denied. If it cannot be denied, it is effectively protected by the court via refusing the denial. If it goes along with the denial of the right just because it isn't enumerated, then there would be no utility in the 9th Amendment.