Replies

You apparently do not like "conservatives like Rush and Coulter". Please explain to us how the comment "Rush has long pontificated that there is no Constitutional 'right to privacy'..." show that Rush is saying that the Constitution grants "rights" to citizens?

Six of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution specifically refer to RIGHT(S) of individuals and guarantees that certain RIGHTS shall be preserved, and Amendment IX (9, if you are from Yorba Linda) refers to "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS...":

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law...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.

Amendment II
...the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment IV
The RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the RIGHT to a speedy and public trial...

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the RIGHT of trial by jury shall be preserved...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, do you still want to claim that the Constitution is not about RIGHTS, as well as limitations on the powers of government?

actually you have to also look tat the FL constitution.

The FL constitution has an explicit constitutional right to privacy (unlike the federal).

I would also submit that Amendment III is a personal right.

I hold that the first 9 amendments are all about individual's rights. (10th is a leftovers clause.)

GGpaX4DumpedTea,
I think you misunderswtood TigersEye's comment. I think he is saying the Constitution doesn't grant rights to individuals. It enumerates a few of them, and states that it is an incomplete list. They were granted by the Creator. It does grant limited rights to the government.

That being said, I totally disagree with TigersEye's comments on Rush and Coulter. They both have stated that the purpose of the Constitution is to limit government's power, and that it is not the source of citizens' rights. Rush has repeatedly stated that, and consistently so.

I also saw posts in this thread saying Rush has taken a stand against a (Federal) right of privacy. I don't think that has been Rush's point. He talked a lot about the ways such a right would be applied, and the impact it would have it would have if it were universally applied to all aspects of life. But he has not taken the stand that any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are somehow non-existant.

gitmo

shall not be infringed.

shall not be violated

No warrent shall be issued

enumeration , listing rights is not granting or limiting them to those listed.

As a whole, the BOR is worded to forbid government from legislating in these areas, not to establish these rights. Our rights are inalienable, not granted.