[Condor51]

The intent of the Constitution was to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government. As such, James Madison didn't exactly give individual 'Rights' much thought (or ink /s). As we say now, "they were a given". However there are a few specifically stated in the 'original' Constitution.

Furthermore, Gonzalez is talking through his a$$. From his perspective, if a Right - or 'privilege' (lets play semantics) is not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments as being 'absolute', we don't have it.

THAT is specifically contradictory to the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You'll note that the Constitution delegates powers "to" the gubmint, not the other way around.

Ergo, Arlen is c-o-r-r-e-c-t.

[AnAmericanMother]

Don't think so.

He is, of course, technically correct. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. And I don't see him saying that we don't have any rights that the Constitution doesn't give -- in fact, he's saying just the opposite.

The more I think about this, the more I think Gonzalez is just pulling Spector's chain. Richly deserved, and he's put some lib writer's shorts in a knot, and that's a good thing too.

He seems to have inadvertently upset quite a number of folks on FR, though.