Let's get something straight about 'enumerated' vs 'unenumerated' rights

And that's only your opinion.

 

But of course. I stated opinion which were opinion, albeit correct, and cited facts which were facts. Why are you posting the obvious?

 

You seem to think that your opinion is fact.

 

I clearly said the my opinions are opinions albeit correct [usually] and the facts I cited, like nine justices on the Supreme court, are pure fact.

 

What argument would you offer that same sex marriage is NOT a right of persons?

 

Let's clarify Condor. I've already stated that the word "abortion" is not "in the constitution", just as the words "smoke tobacco" are not in the constitution. Neither are a gazillion other things people have a right to do, like "walk down the beach at sunrise", in the document.

But as we agree, the Ninth Amendment is in the Constitution, and if one cannot understand what that amendment states in its single sentence, one is challenged in reading and speaking the English language.

 

Just curious if you've read the work of David E. Martin regarding the records of the US Patent Office about patents regarding certain virus?

Have you yet read his work entitled "The Fauci Dossier"?

 

The congress can rectify a supreme court error with the passage of a law. It would have to be a constitutional law, of course. The court sometimes recommends that something be handled by congress.

 

Same sex couples can get "married"; they just can't get married married (meaning officially recognized by state governments) under federal constitution protection IMO (although currently they can per the SCOTUS ruling.). My reasoning is simple: marriage is not recognized, mentioned, or hinted at anywhere in the Constitution or any of its supporting documentation, so it is none of the federal government's (including SCOTUS) business or authority and entirely under the jurisdiction of state governments. Unlike inter-racial marriage, there is no rational way to extend the words in the Constitution to cover same sex marriage.

As an aside, it is my opinion that same sex couples ought to have some of the benefits officially accorded heterosexual marriages, but I don't know how to determine which ones nor how to effect and administer it. Things like hospital visitation rights should be a breeze.

 

If SCOTUS rules that this or that law is unconstitutional, congress cannot pass a law that says it is. My point was that the framers put no checks and balances in for the judicial branch as it did for the executive and legislative branches. If the SCOTUS rules X, then X is the rule forever and no branch of government has any recourse other than SCOTUS itself.

There is an interesting suggestion in the Convention of the States Project that attempts to rectify this. One suggested amendment allows, with some limitations, congress by a 2/3 or 3/4 vote or 2/3 or 3/4 of the state legislatures (but no presidential action) to overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

 

OK. I accept that.

 

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know it only preserves rights between the government and the people. It doesn't confer any other rights.
The constitution governs the government. The constitution doesn't give you a right to smoke tobacco, drive a car, own a dog, drink coffee, or go fishing.
And as much as this is going to sting, you don't get to just make up what rights you have out of word twisting the constitution.

The 9th only limits the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated in the bill of rights. If it didn't, you wouldn't need state laws like HIPAA laws.

One day when your generation does figure out what the constitution is and what it does, this world will be a lot less confusing.

 

Uh yep, where it says race insert sexual orientation.

 

The 14th amendment for instance was written expressly, albeit not explicitly, for black citizens with black former slaves in mind. Gay relationships et al never crossed the writers' nor the approvers' minds.

 

Have you read this?

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/new-plandemic-video-peddles-misinformation-conspiracies/

And a guy named Corsi made similar claims:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...racy-theorist-spreads-false-claim-about-fauc/

 

So?

 

yes, and so let's limit the scope of the constitution to the values of the mid 19th century.

The framers of the constitution never imagined someone like Trump would ever be president. Hell, the electoral college was supposed to consist of elder men of discernment, education and station who would make sure someone like Trump never was nominated, but, here we are.

 

If all that is true sir, why on earth does the 9th NOT contain the word "government"?

No, the document does not "give" you a right to smoke tobacco or have an abortion. Natural rights do, God-given rights, birthrights, the Rights of Man do that. The document and the government merely protect and guarantee those rights that existed before the document was written.

You've painted yourself in the corner, and it's amusing.

 

No I haven't read it. Won't read it.

In these last few years the term "fact checker" has become synonymous with "propagandist".

 

Why? Because facts have a liberal bias?

Hah! No wonder you live in the right wing echo chamber.

Truth hurts.

 

Because there are many examples of the "fact checkers" being hired by men like Bill Gates, and their sole purpose is to advance the agenda of Gates and others. That was shown more than a year ago.

Likely you don't realize it yet, but censorship as advanced by those "fact checkers" is the hallmark of authoritarianism and fascism.

 

Rightly or wrongly, SCOTUS is the determining body of what the constitution says.

Therefore, as of late, same sex couples can get married, and the constitution backs it up.

so says the supreme court.

 

No, we must keep the SCOTUS free from political influence. That belief works against me, as much as it does for me, but it's the same for everyone else.

 

All that means is that same sex marriage is not covered in the least in the Constitution, even in the 14th amendment.

 

Neither is tobacco smoking or swimming in the ocean covered in the document. What's your point?