Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-20-2016, 11:27 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-20-2016, 07:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

The Bill of Rights Wrote:IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This had traditionally meant that if a right existed in the colonial era as part of Common Law, the fact that it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights shouldn't mean the Common Law right should be disregarded.  Living Constitution advocates are advocating five old men being able to invent brand new rights, including rights for corporations, and including rights that definitively did not exist under colonial Common Law, rights that are in direct conflict with colonial Common Law.

I can say that in general progressive justices rewriting the Constitution from the bench generally have their hearts in the right place.  Alas, to the extent they have made the Constitution worthless, the conservative justices have been just as abusive, only it is corporate wallets they are concerned with.  I would as soon the Court honor their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

But -- the States have no right to deny rights as the Constitution defines them and the Supreme Court determines them. As an example, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the right to travel; so far as I can tell, travel for criminal purposes or for violation of terms of a military enlistment might violate laws.

The Right to Travel is a legitimate part of English Common Law.  There were no internal passports in colonial times, no laws where citizens had to seek permission to travel.  This is a legitimate exercise of the Ninth, pretty much.  One is extrapolating from the lack of laws at a given time a limitation on the power of the legislature to write such laws in the future.  The policies of the colonial era might be made permanent by saying if something wasn't regulated then, it can't be regulated now or ever.  For instance, there were no laws in colonial times saying where one could fly one's airplane.  Does this mean the FAA is unconstitutional?  

The first Congress knew they hadn't covered every right exercised at the time in the first eight amendments, and put in the Ninth to cover it.  Travel is a reasonably valid use of the Ninth.

But there were laws against sodomy.  The Supreme Court when inventing new rights from the bench should not act in direct conflict with English Common Law.  The Constitution should not mean whatever five old men want it to mean.  One should not be on the bench if one is not going to take the oath to preserve and protect the Constitution seriously.  From my point of view, deliberately sodomizing the Constitution ought to be the equivalent of treason, an impeachable offense.