The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does not prevent what you have termed "reasonable regulation" of those rights. Your argument hinges on whether a total prohibition of some given item is reasonable or not. Such decisions are typically left up to various communities to decide for themselves (for example, obscenity laws).
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all. For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process. Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you. Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
I'm gonna have to side with Lex on this one. There is no Constitutional bar to the states enacting laws prohibiting drugs. Such laws are stupid, counterproductive, and anathema to the ideals of personal liberty, but are not unconstitutional.
Federal laws prohibiting drugs are a different kettle of fish, and are plainly unconstitutional... even if the bastards on the Supreme Court refuse to recognize it.
I would also argue, since Lex brought up speeding (which is not, after all, a federal crime), that attempts by the Feds to circumvent Constitutional restrictions on their authority through backdoor means such as mandating state legislation by threatening to withhold funds constititute de facto federal overstepping and are themselves unconstitutional.
Even a super majority of people cannot "cede" away their inalienable rights [to bear arms, for instance] and give such a prohibitionary power to the Government.
In fact, their elected representatives swear an oath to the US Constitution that they will not abuse their powers. Reread Article VI.
By your argument, no government has any powers not specifically granted in the Constitution.
Not at all. I've argued all along that States have the powers delegated to them by the people, -- but only powers that are not prohibited to them by the US Constitution. -- Thus, - CA has no power to prohibit guns or drugs, even though a majority of Californians vote for such prohibitions. Such outright prohibitions on life, liberty, or property violate Constitutional due process.
Any law can be construed to "unquestionably [infringe] on the peoples individual rights, privileges & immunities protected throughout the rest of Constitution.". The law that says I cannot race at excessive speeds thru a school zone is an infringement on my inalienable right to travel freely. But, is it a reasonable infringement?
Let a fully informed jury of your peers decide, in the case at hand. Reasonable men will convict you and uphold the law as a reasonable regulation.
The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This does not prevent what you have termed "reasonable regulation" of those rights.
We agree.
Your argument hinges on whether a total prohibition of some given item is reasonable or not. Such decisions are typically left up to various communities to decide for themselves (for example, obscenity laws).
States & Localities can reasonably regulate public aspects of how 'dangerous' items like porn, drugs, and guns are used. Total prohibitions are not reasonable regs.
The 14th specifically says that States can not make laws that abridge [take from, regulate away] our rights to life, liberty or property.
Unless Due Process is applied in an equal manner to all.
As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote:
"The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . " Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S.
For due process, you must have a law legally enacted, then a person must be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and have the conviction upheld throughout the appeal process.
Yep. "Legally enacted" is key to our discussion. How can a 'law' that outright prohibits life, liberty or property be Constitutionally "legal" ?
Further, that same process must be equally applied to all citizens. As long as this due process is done, your life, liberty or property can be forfeit.
Yep, you can lose all those if you are convicted of violating "legally enacted" laws by a fully informed jury of your peers. -- Todays jurys cannot even hear a defense based on our Constitution. Many juries are directed to find guilt from mere possession of 'illegal objects'. This is not due process.
The sticking point is that you consider outright prohibitions to be unreasonable regulation, and therefore not "legally enacted", but judges trying people under such laws have not agreed with you.
Yep, judges too are ignoring their primary oath to support & defend our Constitution. Damn shame.
Usually, the case depends on the balancing of conflicting rights. Is it legal to prohibit you from cooking meth in your backyard? Yes, if the damage to other citizen's right to life is found to outweigh your right to property.
Correct. -- State/local governments can make reasonable regulatory laws about cooking meth. What else is new?