They are not finding them, they are stating that they are already there:
[quote]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [/quote]
Now the way they are doing it is complete and utter BS but in principle they do not find anything, they acknowledge what was always understood to be the right of a free man. [/quote]
No, they aren’t - the Ninth Amendment does not confer substantive rights and was never a blank check for judges to go an find rights and make them the law of the land. It serves to protect against the notion (that Hamilton and Madison both warned of) that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution could give an impression that the federal government was empowered to legislate on anything it wanted except those specific things that the BOR proects. The Ninth Amendment was included to remind that enumeration of rights in the BOR didn’t enlarge the powers of the federal government beyond their own enumerated powers.[/quote]
But is says clearly that people have other rights and that the BOR in no shape or form should be interpreted to infringe on those rights.
So, what are they?
I am saying that Roe vs Wade made a very good point when it comes to privacy and abysmally bad one that that includes abortion.
Also, the rights retained by the people .
The people already had those rights, at the very least the rights of an Englishman.
In fact, you are really almost saying the same thing as me, just the other way around.
If FEDGOV cannot make laws on something, individual liberties remain intact.
Alas, that would mean that an individual has unlimited rights unless the FEDGOV has the authority to make a law in an area and I do not quite believe that Jefferson et al had something like gay marriage in mind when they spoke of “the rights retained by the people”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
But is says clearly that people have other rights and that the BOR in no shape or form should be interpreted to infringe on those rights.
So, what are they? [/quote]
Well, the rights retained by the people to have the federal government not act outside the scope of its enumerated powers, independent of any listing of rights in the BOR or not.
The Ninth Amendment was never designed to have a judiciary sit back and discover these “other rights” - how do we know? The Ninth Amendment only applied to the federal government when it was enacted, it didn’t apply to states. So, the Supreme Court was not vested with the general power to enunciate new “rights” that legislatures nationwide could not infringe upon - that’d make no sense, since the Supreme Court had no authority under the Ninth Amendment to tell state legislatures what they could and couldn’t do w/r/t rights (so there’d be no nationwide recognition of this “determination of rights” anyway), and that w/r/t the federal government, any challenge to an infringement of rights by the federal government would be a challenge that (1) the government overstepped its enumerated powers, or (2) it violated the BOR. With that in mind, there’s no support for an idea that the Supreme Court was to be charged with “determining these other rights”.
No, it didn’t - but in any event, the Ninth Amendment wasn’t the justification for the right to abortion, so yours is a moot point.
No, they wouldn’t have unlimited rights - they’d have all these additional “rights” you want recognized curtailed at the state level like crazy, as they always have, and which are perfectly legitimate under the US Constitution, and the Ninth Amendment.
Welcome to the real world, pal. Of course I like something until I don’t like it. That’s how everyone is. Of course I like a certain approach as long as it fits into my own narrow, selfish framework. I don’t pretend to be intellectually honest in this matter whatsoever. No one on this site is that intellectually honest, but at least I’m upfront about it.[/quote]
So there is no such thing as justice and fairness, only pursuit of interest. Good to know. OUr entire Anglo-American system of laws disagrees with you, but good to know.
Men wrote the laws, and men can change them, but the men that do so should be the men that are accountable to the people who have to live under those laws. That’s the point of the rule of law - some monarch doesn’t get to stand over you and unilaterally determine your fate. It’s kind of a big deal in our history.
But, let’s do a quick thought experiment. You work at a job for over minimum wage. Your employer starts paying you way below minimum wage for your hours. You go before a judge to see for the money you were promised by law as set by the leglislature (above minimum wage) - you think the judge has the authority to say “naw, that minimum wage stuff is garbage - he should be able to pay you whatever he wants. Dismissed.”…?[/quote]
First of all, our entire system of laws is a testament to man’s self-interest. They serve to restrict the pursuit of self-interests. Justice and fairness is defined by our laws. And to avoid the risk of heading down a dark, Hobbes/Locke/State of Nature/Man/Chaos path, that’s all I have to say about that.
As far as your hypothetical goes, it’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about the Supreme Court’s “activism” across the board. I’m referring to civil liberties, and in that respect I prefer the liberal approach FAR more than I do, say, Rehnquist’s “stunted view of liberty.”
Judges aren’t rewriting laws or disregarding them in the manner that you have posited here, and the ones that are I have a problem with. I’m talking about an expanded view of liberty and fundamental rights. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with a Justice deciding for themselves what a fundamental right is if it’s an inclusive and not an exclusive view. The conservative approach allows states to decide for themselves the extent of these rights and that is how we ended up with Jim Crow laws, segregation and a whole host of other backhanded ways to use the legal/political system to disenfranchise blacks and other minorities as much as possible.
The Constitution does not enumerate anywhere in it at all that there is a right to privacy. But the Court has decided that that right is a fundamental part of liberty in general. The conservative approach would deny me that “right” since it isn’t specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution does not specifically grant me the right to have control over my body, it does not specifically enumerate any limits to free speech at all and it does not say that I have the right to equal access to the education and political system, nor does it say that I have the right to access to public areas readily available to the rest of the general public.
But thanks to what many would call “judicial activism”, I can have a certain amount of control over my body, I have the right to privacy, people cannot legally use speech to incite imminent violence or cause monetary damage against me, minorities have the same access to the vote and the school system that anyone else has, we don’t have white and black only restaurants, theaters, bars, etc., and these rights cannot be stunted or abridged by state governments. I don’t have a problem with that at all, and if it means taking some “good judicial activism” with some bad, I’m all for it. The ledger reflects a far larger balance for “good” than “bad”.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
[/quote]
I contained the source in the last post. Fuck off and quit trying to lay your bullshit Sophistry on me. If you don’t believe me, look around until you’re satisfied that I’m wrong.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
[/quote]
I contained the source in the last post. Fuck off and quit trying to lay your bullshit Sophistry on me. If you don’t believe me, look around until you’re satisfied that I’m wrong.[/quote]
I don’t see where Gingrich is saying he’d haul Justices up in front of himself. A quick quote would do. After being wrong about Santorum, it would be kind of nice to pin down Gingrich’s position correctly.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
[/quote]
I contained the source in the last post. Fuck off and quit trying to lay your bullshit Sophistry on me. If you don’t believe me, look around until you’re satisfied that I’m wrong.[/quote]
I don’t see where Gingrich is saying he’d haul Justices up in front of himself. A quick quote would do. After being wrong about Santorum, it would be kind of nice to pin down Gingrich’s position correctly.
[/quote]
I wasn’t wrong about Santorum and I’m not wrong about Gingrich. If you’re insinuating that I’m lying just go ahead and say it instead of dancing around the issue. Personally, your opinion in this forum has been irrelevant to me for a couple of years now, so I really don’t feel the need to placate you. It would mean absolutely nothing to me if I were to post the quote you desire and you had to eat crow as a result. This thread is moving forward, you can stay where you are if you want, but I’m not playing this little game of Sophistry and distraction any longer.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
[/quote]
I contained the source in the last post. Fuck off and quit trying to lay your bullshit Sophistry on me. If you don’t believe me, look around until you’re satisfied that I’m wrong.[/quote]
I don’t see where Gingrich is saying he’d haul Justices up in front of himself. A quick quote would do. After being wrong about Santorum, it would be kind of nice to pin down Gingrich’s position correctly.
[/quote]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/17/gingrich-ill-ignore-any-supreme-court-ruling-i-disagree-with/
Fuck it, I’ll play your little game. Here he says he would defy Court decisions he disagreed with and urge the impeachment of such Justices. He also mentions bringing them before Congress. The second link contains an article that says that in a conference call with reporters he defended his claim that he would subpoena judges if he thought they were wrong. The proverbial “haul up in front of”. I’ve heard him use that specific language and I think these two links, one in which he says he’d bring them before Congress, the other in which he says he would supoena judges as President and ignore Court decisions, should clear up any doubts you had. If you still have them, deal with it.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
I agree with DBCooper on this issue. I actually read through Gingrich’s entire paper (WARNING: there are a few good points in it, but it is mostly BS in my opinion) that I posted a link to and it is very dangerous. It makes it way too easy to overturn Supreme Court rulings and gives the legislative and executive branches way too much power over the Judiciary. I agree with the American system of checks and balances, and think the current system where the Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional, and a constitutional amendment is required to overturn it is a good one. If a Supreme Court decision is that far outside of what the public considers appropriate, we can overturn it. This alone prevents this so-called oligarchy that Gingrich harps on in his paper.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I wasn’t wrong about Santorum and I’m not wrong about Gingrich.[/quote]
So provide something.
Well, I simply thought you were wrong, at first. NOW, I’m starting to wonder.
[quote] Personally, your opinion in this forum has been irrelevant to me for a couple of years now,[/quote] Woe is me [quote] so I really don’t feel the need to placate you.[/quote] Might do your credibility some good, though. [quote]It would mean absolutely nothing to me if I were to post the quote you desire and you had to eat crow as a result.[/quote] So you already have a quote, or quotes in mind? Please, direct us to them. [quote]This thread is moving forward, you can stay where you are if you want, but I’m not playing this little game of Sophistry and distraction any longer.[/quote] Sophistry and distraction? You mean, like your responses to a simple request?
Please, source your claims. What the candidates have said and written themselves.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I know Gingrich has said as much about ‘inferior’ courts (Using Article 3 Sec. 1), but I could swear he’s explicitly denied that congress has the power to do so with, say, the USSC Justices.[/quote]
No. He has specifically cited the Supreme Court and has also specifically cited as precedent President Lincoln’s refusal to acknowledge Scott v. Sanford.
Ok, but I don’t see anything about hauling them in front of congress in this article.[/quote]
I corrected myself regarding Congress several posts ago. I remembered incorrectly and realized later that he wanted to haul Justices up in front of HIM if he was the President. It’s a worse idea than Congress, really. At least with Congress the reversal of a decision from the Court isn’t placed in the hands of one person. A little too autocratic for me.[/quote]
Source, please. I’ve never seen or heard of Gingrich saying the President has the power, or should have the power, to haul in justices from ‘inferior’ courts. Every time I’ve seen this discussed, it’s always about what congress could do.
[/quote]
I contained the source in the last post. Fuck off and quit trying to lay your bullshit Sophistry on me. If you don’t believe me, look around until you’re satisfied that I’m wrong.[/quote]
I don’t see where Gingrich is saying he’d haul Justices up in front of himself. A quick quote would do. After being wrong about Santorum, it would be kind of nice to pin down Gingrich’s position correctly.
[/quote]
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/17/gingrich-ill-ignore-any-supreme-court-ruling-i-disagree-with/
Fuck it, I’ll play your little game. Here he says he would defy Court decisions he disagreed with and urge the impeachment of such Justices. He also mentions bringing them before Congress. The second link contains an article that says that in a conference call with reporters he defended his claim that he would subpoena judges if he thought they were wrong. The proverbial “haul up in front of”. I’ve heard him use that specific language and I think these two links, one in which he says he’d bring them before Congress, the other in which he says he would supoena judges as President and ignore Court decisions, should clear up any doubts you had. If you still have them, deal with it.[/quote]
I know he supports congress doing as much (not with the USSC though). And he makes his argument from Article 3. You claimed he wanted to haul justices up in front of himself, as the President.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with.
[/quote]
You read a nearly 60 page paper in just a few minutes? Would you like a job?
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with.
[/quote]
You read a nearly 60 page paper in just a few minutes? Would you like a job?[/quote]
I didn’t realize his paper had been up for just a few minutes. Oh wait, it’s been up for months.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with.
[/quote]
You read a nearly 60 page paper in just a few minutes? Would you like a job?[/quote]
I didn’t realize his paper had been up for just a few minutes. Oh wait, it’s been up for months.
[/quote]
Then why are you asking people to post information about the Presidents role in limiting the powers of the Judiciary? His plan has been laid out pretty clear in this paper and in his speeches and debates.
Congress can establish procedures for relevant Congressional committees to express their
displeasure with certain judicial decisions by holding hearing and requiring federal judges come
before them to explain their constitutional reasoning in certain decision and to hear a proper
Congressional Constitutional interpretation."
[/quote]
That’s not the presidency.
[/quote]
Read the paper. I am not going to do all of the work for you.[/quote]
I did. That’s not the Presidency. Your quote concerns the congress, which is what I corrected DBcooper with.
[/quote]
You read a nearly 60 page paper in just a few minutes? Would you like a job?[/quote]
I didn’t realize his paper had been up for just a few minutes. Oh wait, it’s been up for months.
[/quote]
Then why are you asking people to post information about the Presidents role in limiting the powers of the Judiciary? His plan has been laid out pretty clear in this paper and in his speeches and debates.
[/quote]