[RHINO369]

The origin constitution had no rights, and many of the framers thought it was dangerous to include a list of rights because it might be assumed that anything not on that list wasn't a right. The Bill of Rights was only passed to insure the new Constitution would pass 3/4 of the states. In the end the framers were right, many assume if it is not clearly enumerated its not a right, when thats simply not the case. Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.

We are speaking only of the federal government. Article I Section 8 ennumerates what the federal government is permitted to do - the BOR sharpens the point regarding liberties which the federal government must not abridge. And even though the states should also supply those protections, we have the Doctrine of Incorporation allowing the federal courts to protect them down through the states.

But it is not correct to say the Constitution forbids state governments from regulating the hell out of a wide range of things. Like for example, the SCOTUS' incorrect Lawrence v. state of Texas decision that absurdly created the federally protected right to sodomy. (BTW I would be very opposed to laws banning sodomy in my state.)

[gondramB]

>>In the end the framers were right, many assume if it is not clearly enumerated its not a right, when thats simply not the case. Unless the constitution gives the government a right to regulated something, it is unconstitutional to regulate that act.<<

I hope you are not expecting me to disagree.