Biden: Dems Will Filibuster Janice Rogers Brown

NewsMax.com ^ | July 3, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

[musanon]

There is ample evidence that the framers intended the Ninth Amendment as incorporating natural law into the Constitution - and Bork advocates removing it from the Constitution.

It is just as illegitimate for a conservative to deny rights that are recognized by the Constitution as it is for liberals to invent rights not recognized by it.
192 Texas Federalist

---

Unalienable rights not enumerated in the Constitution are not protected by the Constitution.

Unalienable rights not enumerated in the BOR are reserved for the legislature to protect.

posted by FreeReign

---

I'm missing something here, FreeReign.

Tex correctly noted that it is wrong for both sides to either deny that unenumerated rights exist, or to 'invent' them.

While you counter that only legislators can protect already enumerated rights?

Aren't you forgetting the clear words of Article VI, wherein all officials, judges, legislators, executives, whatever, -- are bound by oath to support/protect our constitutional rights?

[FreeReign]

...show me one single solitary quote that has Madison saying that the judiciary should determine what the unenumerated unalienable rights are.

Hamilton in the Federalist Papers No. 78: "Limitations [on the legislative power] can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

The above quote says nothing about the judiciary determining what the unenumerated unalienable rights are.

Madison:"A law violating a constituion established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."

Madison:Independant tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenatrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.

You assume that Madison was saying the above two comments in the context of wanting a completed Constitution without a BOR.

All of this together presents a compelling case for the judicial power to protect rights enumerated in the bill or rights, as well as those reserved by the Ninth Amendment.

No it doesn't. All of this does not show that judicial power was intended to protect unenumerated unalienable rights that are not legislated.

[FreeReign]

While you counter that only legislators can protect already enumerated rights?

Read my several posts in their entirety for clarification. The point is too important for you or I to misrepresent it.

Only legislators can protect unenumerated unalienable rights by legislating what these unenumerated rights are.

The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights by upholding them.

[FreeReign]

The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights by upholding them.

Correction: The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights that have been legislated by upholding them.

[oceanview]

that would make the most sense, but lets see how this first round goes.

[Texas Federalist]

You don't seem to realize that there is a difference between argument and contradiction.

[FreeReign]

You don't seem to realize that there is a difference between argument and contradiction.

Double-talk response.

[Liberty Valance]

Has Biden read the Constitution lately? He came up about 63,000,000 votes short to be able to nominate Supreme Court Justices. He's a danger to the Constitution and this country. Has he got a homestead we can make into a hotel too?

[musanon]

I'm missing something here, FreeReign.
Tex correctly noted that it is wrong for both sides to either deny that unenumerated rights exist, or to 'invent' them.

While you counter that only legislators can protect already enumerated rights?

Aren't you forgetting the clear words of Article VI, wherein all officials, judges, legislators, executives, whatever, -- are bound by oath to support/protect our constitutional rights?

Only legislators can protect unenumerated unalienable rights by legislating what these unenumerated rights are.
The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights that have been legislated by upholding them.

Do you mean that until some fed/state/local legislative body makes a 'finding' that a specific right exists, that there is no such right?

Can you explain where you see this power as being delegated to legislators in our Constitution?

[FreeReign]

Tex correctly noted that it is wrong for both sides to either deny that unenumerated rights exist.

I've clearly stated in several posts numerous times that unenumerated unalienable rights exist.

While you counter that only legislators can protect already enumerated rights?

I never said that.

When you find something that I've said that you disagree with please let me know.

[FreeReign]

Only legislators can protect unenumerated unalienable rights by legislating what these unenumerated rights are. The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights that have been legislated by upholding them.

Do you mean that until some fed/state/local legislative body makes a 'finding' that a specific right exists, that there is no such right?

There is no such legal right. There is however an unalienable right regardless of what the government finds.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Well said! I'm sick and tired of people thinking that Bork was the 2nd coming of Solomon or something. Bork was anti-gun to the bone - Ted Kennedy did conservatives a favor, after all.

[FastCoyote]

So, stare decisis MAKES law, but revoking stare decisis would be MAKING LAW and is therefore not allowed.

Oh, now that explains it, I understand now ? ? ! ! ? ?

[musanon]

While you counter that only legislators can protect already enumerated rights?

I never said that.
Only legislators can protect unenumerated unalienable rights by legislating what these unenumerated rights are. The judiciary can and must then protect these unenumerated unalienable rights that have been legislated by upholding them.

Do you mean that until some fed/state/local legislative body makes a 'finding' that a specific right exists, that there is no such right?

There is no such legal right.

So you agree that constitutionally/legally, - until a Ca State legislature makes such a 'finding', - that Calif citizens would have no legal right to keep & bear arms. Correct?

There is however an unalienable right regardless of what the government finds.

How do you suggest CA citizens exercise that right, if they have no 'legal/constitutional' power to do so?

[FreeReign]

So you agree that constitutionally/legally, - until a Ca State legislature makes such a 'finding', - that Calif citizens would have no legal right to keep & bear arms. Correct?

What?

Bearing arms is an enumerated unalienable right in the U.S. Constitution.

Might I suggest that you look at my posts again and make a careful distinction where I say "enumerated" and where I say "unenumerated".

[musanon]

It's not an enunmerated right in the CA Constitution, is it.

[Protagoras]

I agree with your post 192. The peril to rights comes from the right as well as the left.

[deport]

I bow to your intellectual superiority...

---

YEEEAAAGGGHHH!!!!!

[Austin Willard Wright]

Lock and load. Let's hope that conservatives have the courage to call for a NO vote if Gonzales is nominated.