If I select nine Supreme Court justices, they will reach certain conclusions about what “a consensus of of present-day reasonable men” think. Those conclusions will be vastly different than those reached by the nine Supreme Court justices selected by Dennis Kucinich.
And because those nine justices are all serving in lifetime appointments, I wonder if you really have thought through what it means to hand them the power to declare rights based on their view of “a consensus of of present-day reasonable men.” You might be happy with the conclusions reached by Kucinich’s nine, but not so thrilled with mine.
Doesn’t it make more sense to vest the power to make sweeping changes in law and social polict to a body that’s responsible to the electorate? I don’t see how we are truly iving up to the notion that we are self-governed, otherwise.
Those are good starts, no doubt. And I like those guideposts much better than the “consensus of of present-day reasonable men.”
But my question to *Polycarp still holds. When the power to enact sweeping change is vested in unelected judges, how can we truly say we’re living up to the ideal of self-governance?
Doesn’t it make more sense to vest the power to protect our rights from the actions of the majority to… oh I don’t know… not the majority? Kinda like how the founders created a nation with checks and balances.
When you give the ultimate power to the people, who can amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it’s just mob rule, which is not what the founders envisioned.
So, Shodan, you have no rights unless a majority of voters at a referendum agrees you do? Note we’re speaking of rights, not the license to do something which may be granted discretionarily. For example, you have no right to fly a plane, drive a school bus, or broadcast clear channel on your own radio station; those are things you may be licensed to do. Now, do you have a right to marry – not necessarily an inviolable right to marry anyone or anything you choose, but the basic right to contract marriage, which may not be deprived you, even by popular referendum?
If there is no constitution claim to a federal definition of marriage outside of the sovereign states’ individual definition, then how come the IRS can invalidate a same-sex married couple from Massachusetts from filing as married?
Funny, I could have sworn I posted the following -
Oh well. Shodan’s rule of thumb remains the same.
No, actually it does not. It is fully in accordance with both the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments. Especially the Tenth, which states quite clearly who has these unenumerated rights. Can the class guess who that is? Hint: it is not the Supreme Court.
OK, so our rights are whatever the Supreme Court says they are. What is the check on the power of judges? Amend the Constitution? Don’t be absurd - if the Supremes get to ignore the Tenth Amendment, then they get to ignore any subsequent.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Shodan: Other rights retained by the people that are not enumerated are without Constitutional protection.
I’m not seeing any “accordance”, only direct conflict. You can’t get much more disparaging of a right of the people than not protecting it because it isn’t enumerated.
You have to go to the 10th for that? The Ninth says it. RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. The 10th is, oddly enough, a different amendment that deals with, oddly enough, a different thing. Federalism and the rights of the people are two different things.
That’s not what I said. Congress is certainly empowered to create, and in some cases, limit our rights also. The Supreme Court is also empowered to protect our rights.
Sorry that you find the Constitution to be “absurd.”
Well, since you are pretending not to know what the Tenth Amendment says, here it is -
Deciding which rights really exist but are un-enumerated is a power. That power is not delegated to the United States government by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is part of the government. Therefore the Supreme Court does not have that power. QED.
Figures. I ask you to support an untenable argument and get an insult. Up to your usual standard of pathetic debating, I see.
I’ve heard your … quaint … view of the 10th and judicial review, but once again, you never support it. The judicial power includes judicial review, including the balancing of rights against the powers of the government. That power is specifically given to the Supreme Court, and the lesser courts. If you believe that the Supreme Court is empowered to protect our enumerated rights, say like the 2nd Amendment, from governmental intrusion, that power must extend to unenumerated rights also (see the 9th Amendment). Now, if you believe that the judiciary has no power whatsoever to find any statute unconstitutional as a violation of a person’s right, have at it. But pretending that the 10th somehow stops the judiciary from exercising its Constitutionally granted powers is just silly.
I think your nigh but pathological need to engage in petty insults and unwillingness to support your assertions says volumes about your position. It also speaks volumes about you.
Under what set of facts would (or could) the SCOTUS decide the issue of whether same sex marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution? In other words, what has to happen to give the Supremes the opportunity to decide the issue?
Actually, my responses, combined with your complete inability to defend and insistent refusal to support, your position are what invalidates it. My dislike for you is mainly because you constantly insist on only offering petty insults and never actually engage in honest debate. So, while it is true I dislike you and your inane posting style, it has nothing to do with the wrongness of your position. But, as you are want to do, you would rather engage in insults and pretend you’re oppressed rather than deal with the issues. Good luck with that.
Perhaps you’d like to take a crack at actually addressing the syllogism instead of pretending it doesn’t exist -
Or, failing that, you could address the distinction between “the government has no rights unless the Constitution says so” and “people have no rights unless the Constitution says so”. Just to help you along, the first is what I said; the second is what you claim I said.
As I recall, I explained this to you once or twice or three times before. Maybe it will stick this time.
I did. You didn’t listen or respond. As you are wont to do, you simply plugged your proverbial ears and responded instead with petty insults.
The power to determine rights IS enumerated, it’s the judicial power, granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. And, as I said already: “If you believe that the Supreme Court is empowered to protect our enumerated rights, say like the 2nd Amendment, from governmental intrusion, that power must extend to unenumerated rights also (see the 9th Amendment). Now, if you believe that the judiciary has no power whatsoever to find any statute unconstitutional as a violation of a person’s right, have at it. But pretending that the 10th somehow stops the judiciary from exercising its Constitutionally granted powers is just silly.”
OK, then all you need to do is cut and paste where it says that in the Constitution. Something roughly equivalent to “The Supreme Court shall be granted the power to determine what are the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment”. And just as a gentle hint, the Ninth Amendment does not mention the Supreme Court.