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: Lane3 who wrote (4144)	1/1/2017 2:59:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361482

I was asking why you would choose to interpret so skimpily wrt rights when you could choose otherwise. Because I"m not in to making up what doesn't seem to be in the words of the constitution. There are cases where proper application is rather open to interpretation, for example "freedom of the press" well what is the press? Do bloggers count? All of them or only ones that are part of media companies? I would tend to interpret "the press" broadly here as I would in other similar areas unless I see a good reason to think the words of the constitution suggest it shouldn't be applied broadly. But that's different than taking a right that isn't mentioned at all in the constitution and calling it a constitutional right. What's next, a "right to health care" (since being health supports your essential human dignity <g>). For some ideas about rights that aren't listed in the constitution (but not a "right" to health care) I might, after careful consideration, support an amendment to add them to the constitution, but if one can just add whatever one wants in to the constitution by judicial decision or otherwise other than the amendment process, seems to be making the constitution so flexible that it becomes meaningless. My take on the Enlightenment and our founding documents is that essential human dignity was a right, a natural right. That's fine as a philosophical or moral principle, but "essential human dignity" is rather vague in terms of what it would mean in concrete law, and also isn't mentioned in the constitution, not I think even with other words. It would be redundant, would it not, to specify that rights both may not be denied plus must be protected? Maybe your not grasping my meaning. Let me try rephrasing. The 9th says that rights are not limited to what is in the constitution, but it doesn't say that constitutional rights go beyond the constitution. Not in the constitution != not a right Claimed right not mentioned in the constitution != constitutional right. As for the utility of the 9th amendment, it strikes me as a general principle, that is useful if people support and accept it, but has little direct legal utility in constitutional interpretation.