I would agree that Ninth Amendment does not protect unenumerated rights–it just states that they do exist. The Federal constitution and the bill of rights don’t really offer much protection of rights outside of the limited context of Federal laws. However, the Fourteenth Amendment very specifically empowers Congress to guarantee the equal protection of the law, and rights as citizens, to all Americans. I often find many originalist leaning online legal pundits act like the Fourteenth Amendment was never passed, or they try to craft cute arguments to say it doesn’t really apply to the States–it was passed, and the originalist argument that matters is that it was specifically passed to deal with badly behaving State governments.
Now in applying the Fourteenth Amendment can the Federal government protect its citizens unenumerated rights? I think they can if those rights have a legal or constitutional basis. I do not think the courts should truly invent a right out of thin air. It’s important to understand this distinction–there is NO right to property in the constitution, read it 10 times, you’ll never see the specifically enumerated right to property. There is NO right to privacy. There is NO right to travel.
However, if you actually “read for comprehension”, you will find all three of those rights are clearly a consequence of, and have to exist, based on enumerated rights that already exist under the law.
Also keep in mind that not all rights have to be in the Federal constitution. The Federal government has some options–admittedly more limited, to enshrine rights in statute, and the courts have the power to protect those rights. Since the Federal government has to rely on enumerated powers to justify legislation, it can’t simply enshrine any right it pleases, but it has significant leeway. In addition to that, State constitutions and State laws can likewise enshrine rights–and because the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and rights under the law, the Federal courts can protect a Florida resident’s equal protection of some right under the Florida constitution, if the Governor of Florida is trying to grant that right solely to say, white men to the exclusion of other races/genders.
Your entire post was excellent, but this is the most important part, in my opinion. The issue in Roe is oftentimes framed as a “right to abortion”, but it’s really a case invoking the right to privacy, and then finding that it includes this medical decision.
By undercutting Roe (and I admit that I haven’t read the leaked opinion), it’s my understanding that the court is revoking the right to privacy altogether. This is quite alarming! The entire point of the 9th amendment was to recognize that the constitution wasn’t itemizing rights within its text. When the court chooses not to recognize something as fundamental as the right to be free from certain degrees of government intrusion, our entire notion of freedom is at risk.
This is based on the idea that Supreme Court justices make highly political rulings on the logical implications of details in past written decisions.
Bush v. Gore cured me of this idea. I think they will rule on their preferred public policy outcome, and then find a plausible justification to write down.
If Alito was was against birth control pills, while being pro-choice, he would write that Griswold is poorly argued, while Roe is settled law.
I heard on the radio that Planned Parenthood in soon-to-ban states will assist women in need to arrange travel to “border states” (where it’s still legal) like Virginia. They mentioned challenges beyond cost of travel, like taking time off from work and child care.
So, like so many other Republicans, she’s learned how to talk out both sides of her ass at the same time and whose word is no more reliable than those she vetted, and guy who let T**** appoint two of the three he appointed.
“I’m pro-choice – unless the Supreme Court says it’s okay to be otherwise.”
Full Title: Susan Collins Says No to Democrats’ Abortion-rights Bill Because It Contains Too Many Abortion Rights The Maine lawmaker continues to insist she is pro-choice, however.
Dudes- be sure to be on the lookout for the propaganda spread by Russian bots , things like “a single vote doesn’t mean anything” and “the Republicans and the Democrats are all the same”. The Kremlin and the GOP don’t want people to vote.
I will say one thing is positive and that is that unlike 50 years ago, over half the abortions currently are medication abortions. While I would never suggest anything illegal, there are foreign doctors willing to ship the abortion medications to the US. These medications can be safely used at home. Certainly this is preferable to back-alley butchers and coat hangers.
As for abortion being legal in Virginia, that is a relative term. I live in Northern Virginia, the most liberal area, and the nearest planned parenthood to me is 2 1/2 hours away in Richmond. There are other clinics but most women seeking care don’t always know their names.
Could you comment on the difference between two of the issues as addressed by Alito (I have only read a few excerpts of the draft, not the whole document). Alito addresses two categories of precedent: legal and scientific. I assume that legal precedents from the last three centuries are relevant, but concurrent scientific precedents clearly are not.
