Natura
Everyone of my rights exist with or without a constitution.
But we see other rights such as a right to privacy which are derived from the rights that were acknowledged not established by the Constitution.
Let us examine the text of the first amendment to see this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice how we do not see the establishment of any right. These were rights already possessed. The right of free speech can only be abridged if it already exists. And it is not conferred upon anyone prior. We can only conclude that the right existed before the constitution. This is in line with the philosophical assumptions of the drafters regarding natural rights.
Even in instances where one could feasibly argue there was a conferring of a right (the 5th and 6th amendment) we only see a framework to preserve our right to justice.
No but you certainly sound like you are trying to use the constitution to disparage other rights possessed by the people which flies in the face of the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Natural rights that have been assumed throughout history.
Well cheers to that. I really look forward to you recognizing the intent of the drafters.
l Agree with you in part, in that all rights, as Jefferson said, come from the creator, which you refer to as natural rights. Jefferson also said that the whole purpose of the Constitution was to codify rights, thus his insistence on the bill of rights.
The 9th amendment, of course, refers to unenumerated rights, which I am disgusted by in Roe v Wade. These are almost always cobbled together by using pieces of other amendments, as was ¨privacy´ in Wade.
The issue for me isn´t privacy per se, it is that it is being used to screen the denial of another right.
The dissent in Wade made it clear that privacy was promulgated because the majority would not address the primary issue, the humanity of an unborn child, and thus equal protection.
Many have speculated, and I agree, that the majority was afraid to do this, for fear of backlash, or their own conscienceś. Like Pilate, they found a way to conveniently wash their hands of the matter.
This very troubling, since, as I have pointed out in another post, the killing of an unborn baby by killing the mother, is considered murder. In some jurisdictions when the mother lives, and the unborn baby dies, criminal jeopardy for the death is affixed.
How can you murder something that isn´t a human ? If you can murder an unborn baby, does that not make it human with that most basic natural right, the right to life ? This has been the fundamental right of the unborn since the Republic was founded, till 1973.
So then, explain to me how a legally established determination of humanity to the unborn exists on the one hand, yet this humanity can be denied by another right ?
A total legal pool of stupidity to me that will continually be attacked and be controversial and an area of conflict till resolved. The unenumerated right to privacy never addressed whether the American legal system had been in error till 1973. That was the entire purpose of the rationalization for Roe V Wade, sidestep all the issues, history, prior findings, and make something up to do so. ¨privacy¨ makes everything before and after moot. Washing their hands indeed.
