Assuming neither of us can, will you agree not to mention them again?
But just because all rights are not listed does not mean that they are infinite. The rights we can cite as being nonenumerated (travel, commerce, arguably privacy, etc) at least have a basis in common law going back hundreds of years. You can’t say the same for vice. Why can’t you produce some citation for a law at common that protects the right of people to engage in vices as long as they don’t bother others?
As far as intent of Founding Fathers, let me provide you with some citations of laws passed in the era of the Founding Fathers that provide for punishment of vices:
An Act for the due Observation of the Sabbath or Lord’s-Day, Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut (1784)
An Act for the due Observation of the Sabbath or Lord’s-Day, Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796), 368.
1795: An Act more effectually to prevent the profanation of the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, 2 Laws of Delaware, 1700-1797 (1797), 1209.
1782: An Act for Making More Effectual Provision for the Due Observation of the Lord’s Day . . ., Acts and Laws of Massachusetts, 1782 (reprinted 1890), 63.
1792: An Act providing for the due Observation of the Lord’s Day, 2 Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-1800 (1801), 536.
1799: An Act for the better observation of the Lords day . . ., 6 Laws of New Hampshire (Second Constitutional Period), 1792-1801 (1917), 592. [366 U.S. 420, 547]
1790: An Act to promote the Interest of Religion and Morality, and for suppressing of Vice . . ., Acts of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the State of New Jersey, c. 311 (1790), 619.
1798: An Act for suppressing vice and immorality, Laws of New Jersey, Revised and Published under the Authority of the Legislature (1800), 329.
1788: An Act for suppressing immorality, Laws of New York, 1785-1788 (1886), 679.
1798: An Act prohibiting Sports and Labour on the first Day of the Week, Public Laws of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations (1798), 577.
and so on, and so on. Cite.
20.06.07.04
Only if you offer a reasonable explanation how the constitution that recognizes “rights retained by the people” specifically excludes the very same inalienable rights. The spirit of the author is clear in both BoR and DoI.
The number of rights is irrelevant. The rights retained by the people arise by the one inclusive and inalienable right. Yet the one can be expressed in an infinite number of ways (including travel and commerce and privacy). The inalienable right of liberty and justice for all is the same as the retained right of peaceful pursuit of happiness. Our government was and is instituted to secure these rights through regulation and justice; no matter the words of constitution or law.
Please note that the words “regulation and justice” are not the same as “prohibition and law”. The constitution authorizes government right of regulation under areas of commerce and value of money and militia. Yet, the constitution and bill of rights invoke prohibition only against the powers of government; no matter the “precedence” of “activist” judges or amendments.
I admit that you will find ample case law and precedence of tyranny stretching from earliest recorded history to present. I admit you will find precedence of tyranny even in our own supreme court.
Yet precedence of tyranny does not justify continued tyranny. Would you also argue slavery was just up until the 13th finally revealed to you it is unjust? Not even the whole of the caseload and precedence of tyranny carries slightest weight against the truth revealed by the precedence of liberty.
The inalienable right of peaceful pursuit of happiness is by definition retained by the people. That is the meaning of inalienable rights: rights that cannot be justly taken; rights retained by all people; no matter the constitution or law.
Not only is there nothing in the constitution to authorize denial or prohibition of [redundant] inalienable rights retained by the people [/redundant], Amendment XI of the BoR specifically emphasizes these retained rights.
Justice demands proof before liberty is denied. Opinion and precedence and explanation are not the same as proof. Show me words of constitution that authorize prohibition of peaceful pursuit of happiness.
Prove prohibition of peaceful vice is constitutional.
r~