And, once again, I did. Have you gone past the point of even reading, and just spew out non-responsive answers and backhanded insults?
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
And, for the third time, because you keep missing it: "“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.”
Article III Section 2 and Amendment XIV Section 1. Unless you want to suggest that “judicial power” does not mean “ability to render decisions as a court” or “cases arising under this Constitution” does not include cases asserting rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Or some other waffle intended to say that 50%+1 of the inhabitants of this country can declare the other 50%-1 to be totally deprived of life, liberty, and property, and there’s not a damned thing they can do by law other than revolt. Over to you, guru of “states rights.”
OK, now the text that says specifically that establishing unenumerated rights is part of the judicial power. And no, it is not necessarily included, and the Supreme Court may not give themselves that power.
No, I want to suggest that “judicial power” does not include “ability to enumerate new rights” which is reserved to the states, or the people.
And “cases arising under this Constitution” are certainly within their purview. Notice, however, that you are asserting rights not arising from the Constitution - you are asserting rights unenumerated under the Constitution. Therefore, they are not under the purview of the Supreme Court, and that power is reserved to the states, or the people.
Any and all assertions of rights unenumerated by the Constitution are solely and entirely controlled by the states and the people. The federal government may take no action whatever, either to establish or deny. For the feds, 'whatever is not mandatory is forbidden".
SSM, if it exists as a right, is a right unenumerated by the Constitution. The federal government may take no action, therefore. If the states or the people establish such a right by referendum, the Supreme Court may not overturn that referendum. If the states or the people declare that no such right exists, the Supreme Court may not establish it.
Should the Constitution be amended, either to give the Supreme Court the power to determine what the unenumerated rights might be, or to enumerate some previously undefined right and bring it under the protection of the federal government, well and good. Absent that, no good.
Over to you, but just a hint -
This is remarkably silly. I’m quite sure you would object if I characterized your desire as one to totally deprive 100% - 9 of the country of their life, liberty and property. I don’t expect any better from Hamlet, but I do expect it from you.
I’ve been patient with your half-assed insults and petty, meaningless rejoinders, yet you insist on being a complete and utter jackass. Why is that? Is it because you can’t debate the issue, so you resort to these kinds of things? Or is it deeper, like that you’re a pathetic little man who needs to pretend he’s disagreed with because he’s conservative, when, in reality, you’re actually incapable of debate and have the intellectual honesty of a slug?
Now that that’s out of the way, are you ever going to answer my points? Do you believe that the “judicial power” includes the power to strike down legislation that violates the Constitution? Do you agree that the “judicial power” includes the power to find statutes unconstitutional if they violate “enumerated” rights? If you do, then why do you insist on ignoring the 9th amendment and continue to make the enumerated/unenumerated distinction? And where is it in the Constitution that the judicial power includes enumerated, but does not include unenumerated? If you’re going to take a position that is clearly in violation of the 9th Amendment, you’d better have some actual language.
You’re out of line, here. If you want to call people names, take it to the Pit.
On the other hand, this thread was going quite smoothly (particularly for a passionate subject) with people of radically opposed views responding civilly to each others’ points (even when exasperated) until we started seeing these sort of rude interruptions:
Shodan, even when your points have been valid, this looks like threadshitting, to me. Knock it off.
The 10th ammendent. If it’s not an enumerated right, it’s for the state government and/or people to establish and protect, ala CA.
In order for the SC to have authority to protect the right, or judge federal legislation based upon it, the people/states should go through the relevant channels, and get it put on the ‘enumerated’ list.
It says nothing like that. If you accept that judicial review of legislation for violation of rights is the “judicial power”, the 9th requires that the same review apply to unenumerated. To do anything else is to “deny or disparage” those rights. Had the Constitution said the exact opposite of the 9th, and said what you want the 10th to say, that rights not enumerated are unprotected, but it doesn’t.
Funny how often it’s my fault when I get insulted. :shrugs:
Hamlet, there is still an outstanding question for you. I was asking that you quote “the text that says specifically that establishing unenumerated rights is part of the judicial power”. Since non-responsiveness seems to irritate you.
I’ve answered it 3 times now, but here we go again, just for you: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
And, for the third time, because you keep missing it: "“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.”
Do I need to explain it to you again? The judicial power includes the power to, oddly enough, judge. That includes deciding when legislation violates the rights of people in the US. The distinction you seem to be making (but I can’t be sure because you refuse to answer my post), that it’s a power when done for enumerated but not for unenumerated, is nowhere in the text, and, in fact, is contrary to the 9th Amendment.
It is funny how often you ignore the questions asked of you and resort to taunting and insults and then act like it is not your fault. I am neither a liberal or a conservative but I find your partisan approach for the right as repulsive as I find Dio and Elvis1lives for the left.
While I often don’t agree with Bricker or Hamlet–at least they have presented well thought out arguments and actually respond to what other posters have presented. And more importantly, I have seen them modify their position on issues–something that I have NEVER seen you (or your counterparts on the left) ever do–you dig in and eventually resort to your usual approach and somehow everyone else is picking on you. I often wonder what a good conservative poster like **Bricker ** thinks when you are on his side in an argument–I know what I think when one of the totally partisan posters is on the same side as me. I always wish I was on the other side!
Now on this particular argument I am not well versed enough to contribute, but I do appreciate the well thought out arguments presented by both Bricker and Hamlet, I wish I could say you had contributed to my education on this subject, but ‘shrug’ , guess that isn’t going to happen.
You are begging the question again. The text you quote says nothing whatever about unenumerated rights. This is a mere assertion on your part, and has no basis in the text of the Constitution. The very fact that the writers of the Constitution felt it necessary to state, quite clearly and specifically, that all the powers not otherwise reserved to the federal government belong to the states, or the people, and limits the purview of the feds solely to cases arising under the Constitution, means that this is not under the authority of the court.
The Court is to adjudicate cases arising under the Constitution, and must resolve all such cases with reference to, and using powers granted it by, the Constitution. The exercise of any and all other powers not explicitly granted them by the Constitution - note the word “explicitly” - is illegitimate.
To repeat - the fact that you claim that the judicial power includes the power to enumerate rights is meaningless. You must demonstrate it, using the Constitution. To date, you have failed to do so, instead begging the question over and over. If you would like to have another shot, have at it. If you can’t - well, I understand.
Wrong. As pointed out, this is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Once again, the syllogism -[ul][li]Establishing unenumerated rights is a power. []Nowhere in the Constitution does this power get assigned to the federal government.[]Therefore it automatically is reserved to the states, or the people.[/ul][/li]And in no way does this disparage unenumerated rights, to anticipate another red herring. Those rights are protected by granting the power of establishing them to the states, or the people, clearly and specifically.
And they are especially protected from a danger of recent years - that of Justices who seize for themselves powers to which they have no legitimate right, thus violating their oaths and trespassing against the Constitution.
The Tenth does not stop them from exercising its Constitutionally granted powers. It says, quite clearly and specifically, that unless the Constitution grants powers to the federal government, no such powers exist. They belong to the states, or the people.
[quote]
Do I need to explain it to you again? The judicial power includes the power to, oddly enough, judge. That includes deciding when legislation violates the rights of people in the US.
[quote]
Judge? Certainly. Legislate? Not so much.
:shrugs;
We’ve already covered this. It is in the text, and it isn’t contrary to the Ninth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment does not contradict the Ninth. It establishes the locus of authority for the enumeration of rights.
The Constitution establishes certain rights, IOW. The enumeration of all others is up to the states, or the people. If, as you pretend, the Constitution meant to give the Supreme Court this power, it would have said so in the Tenth Amendment.
Nor is there anything in the text I quoted about enumerated rights either, yet the founders, I, and pretty much a majority of people in the US believe the judicial power granted includes the power to find legislation that violates a US person’s rights to be Unconstitutional. So, despite there being no text (by your logic) granting that power, it still exists. You just want to make a distinction that isn’t in the text, between enumerated and unenumerated rights. Which is precisely the problem the 9th Amendment was meant to resolve.
Now I’m confused (which, once again could have been resolved if you ever decided to be fair and answer my questions to you). The power to strike legislation that violates enumerated rights isn’t “explicitly granted” in the Constitution either. So are you saying that the judiciary doesn’t have that power either? Because either it does or it doesn’t; you can’t have it both ways. If you do accept judicial review, the 9th Amendment requires that it have that power for both enumerated and unenumerated, or else the unenumerated rights are being denied or disparaged.
I have. You’re the one creating a distinction (between enumerated and unenumerated) rights that is not in the text, nor in the definition of “judicial power” and that violates the 9th Amendment.
[quote=Shodan]
Wrong. As pointed out, this is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Once again, the syllogism -[ul][li]Establishing unenumerated rights is a power. []Nowhere in the Constitution does this power get assigned to the federal government.[]Therefore it automatically is reserved to the states, or the people.[/ul][/li][/quote]
You can say it another 20 times, it doesn’t make it any more true. The judicial power includes the power to find legislation that violates a US person’s rights to be unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is that power limited to only enumerated rights, and instead the 9th Amendment says the opposite.
Red herring? The entire point of the 9th Amendment is a “red herring” to you? From the quotes I gave you earlier, one of the huge problems founders had with a Bill of Rights was that people would think that only those rights are protected from governmental intrusion. So, in direct response, Madison wrote the 9th Amendment, so people, people who paid attention, would know that rights not enumerated could not be denied or disparaged simply because they weren’t enumerated. Which is exactly what you’re doing, despite the fact you continue to deny it. You are denying and disparaging those unenumerated rights protection simply because they aren’t enumerated.
Oh, I see. I was under the impression that when you said that the power to establish unenumerated rights was granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, that you actually meant it.
OK, now we have established that the Constitution doesn’t say what you claimed. Fair enough.
I thought you said something earlier about how the Constitution was there to protect us from the majority. I assume you didn’t mean that either.
Really? I could have sworn it was in the text - the Ninth Amendment, to be precise.
So, since there is no distinction between enumerated and unenumerated rights, the Ninth Amendment is meaningless? But you were basing your whole argument on it!
Sure it is. You even quoted it a time or two.
I’m gonna assume you are just funnin’ with us, and you don’t really need the Article quoted back to you.
You’re right, I can’t.
Remember that “red herring” I mentioned? This is it. These rights would be disparaged if not for the Tenth Amendment - you know, the one that sets the locus of responsibility for establishing rights.
I don’t have to say it at all - the Constitution has said it already.
There you go again, asserting something without proving it.
I think we have established that this is not in the Constitution. At least, you seem reluctant to paste where it is. And I am pretty sure we agree that the Constitution is not designed automatically to reflect the will of the majority (and your opinion on what it should say is- well, not as valuable to me as it seems to be to you). So perhaps you could come up with some quotes from the Founding Fathers where they clearly state that their intent in the Constitution was to vest the power of establishing unenumerated rights in the Supreme Court. A little background on why they didn’t say so might be useful as well.
Failing that, you could always deal with Plexi Guy’s rather cogent quotes, especially the one from Scalia -
Right! Very good - you understand that rights are being protected from government interference. Once you grasp that the right to decide which rights are enumerated, and why the Tenth Amendment protects us from the government disparaging and denying our right so to decide, you will be well on your way.
I see. This is a game to you, rather than a debate. Had you answered my questions earlier, we could have resolved your present misstatements about my position, but you decided to revel in your kind of “debate” which, apparently, is nothing much. So, rather than engaging in honest debate and answering my question, you decide to cause confusion, and then revel in it, leaving me to try and piece your actual position from a ragtag group of ramblings. Unfortunately, finding your actual argument takes time and patience, neither of which I have right now. It appears you think that, since the Constitution does not grant the power to strike legislation that violates a US citizens rights, it doesn’t exist. As I said before, that’s fine. It’s completely wrong in light of the granting of the judicial power, but its fine. At least I know where you stand instead of your assinine hide the ball tactics.
Sorry, but I tend to have a real life, with a kid’s birthday party, dinner to make, and baths to give. As I said, it takes time and patience to sift my way through your missstatements, and I had, and still have neither right now. If somehow having a life means I don’t have to waste my time with you, c’est la vie.
Not just accused, you haven’t. Here they are again, just in case you decide to turn over a new leaf and engage in debate rather than purposeful obfuscation.
"Now that that’s out of the way, are you ever going to answer my points? Do you believe that the “judicial power” includes the power to strike down legislation that violates the Constitution? Do you agree that the “judicial power” includes the power to find statutes unconstitutional if they violate “enumerated” rights? If you do, then why do you insist on ignoring the 9th amendment and continue to make the enumerated/unenumerated distinction? And where is it in the Constitution that the judicial power includes enumerated, but does not include unenumerated? If you’re going to take a position that is clearly in violation of the 9th Amendment, you’d better have some actual language.