Well, there’s pretty clearly a right of self defense (and a right to keep arms) in common law. As Blackstone put it, in his commentaries on English law From Book 1, Chapter 1:
Blackstone also points out in the same chapter:
Immaterial; every US state has adopted statutory language regarding self defense, which overrules (or at least supersedes) the common law interpretation.
When I say “Cite?” I mean “Cite?” Nothing in the DoI or the Constitution speaks of a “right to self-defense.”
Right. I’m responding to the claim that “you are advocating that Supreme Court judges should disregard the basic tenets of our common law legal system.”
Oh, well carry on then.
My original point being that using the DoI as some sort of precedent has no basis in common law. I can see how that was unclear.
The DoI states that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them (meaning that there are others) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, for anyone with a degree of understanding, there is no need for a “cite” to realize that the right of self-defense goes hand in hand with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Nothing in the Constitution speaks of a right to privacy, but having a degree of understanding, I can see that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution.
And “privacy” is another of those inalienable rights that go hand in hand with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Need a cite?
Is that what they did when they found the right to privacy?
It just struck me that if the right to life is “inalienable”, then capital punishment is never a proper undertaking.
This suggests that all executions ever carried out by the federal and state governments were unlawfully imposed and administered.
Or, perhaps it suggests that in the interpretation of the law, it’s not really valid to expect the phrases in the Declaration of Independence to drive the outcome of the cases.
The DOI is of no legal relevance, and SCOTUS has never established that there is an explicit right to self-defense.
It HAS established that there is a right to privacy. That’s all Sotomayor was talking about – what has and what has not been established on paper, not personal opinions. It would be inappropriate for her to state a personal opinion about whether a given right SHOULD exist. She’s not an activist.
Nope. They found it in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.
With all due respect to Dio, yes, that’s exactly what they did. Roe v. Wade is bad law, for all that it serves a necessary end.
Roe is not the decision that found the right to privacy. That was Griswold. Roe based it’s decision on the rights previously found in Griswold.
Liking or not liking these decisions is besdie the point, though. The fact is that a right to privacy exists because the Supreme Court says so. Neither the Court nor the Constitution ha said that a right to self defense exists.
Sorry, Griswold. Point remains.
I should add that SCOTUS probably would find a right to self defense if asked, it just hasn’t been asked yet.
In the context of this discussion, the point really does not remain. SCOTUS is the arbiter of what rights exist or don’t exist. The Supreme Court is the last word. It doesn’t matter if anyone disagrees with it, just like it didn’t matter if Justice Sotomayor thought there should be a right to self defense. All she was saying was that no such right has been explicitly established as a matter of Constitutional law. The right to privacy HAS been. Anyone else liking it or not liking it is neither here nor there.
Just for the record, Dio added the mention of Griswold to his post after I responded to it.
Coming from you, that word would be irony. 