Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[martybegan]

• 

Nice response. deeek.

 

[martybegan]

The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.

It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution. Considering cell phones to be something that requires a warrant is interpreting, creating a right to an abortion or gay marriage is ADDING, without using the actual process of adding something.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

 

[martybegan]

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

The convenience factor is on your side of the argument, not mine. Your side says "I want X", and instead of convincing your fellow citizens that X is a great idea, and having it protected via amendment, you use the courts to create a right to X, and then pretend it was there all along.

All original and amended constitutional rights were based on a vote by the people via the federal legislature and the States. Now we have decided 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can make up rights if the loudest and most obnoxious people in our society decide they want it to be so.

That argument presupposes that the SCOTUS hasn't had that right and made decisions that affect the rest of us from the very beginning. They have in both cases. Next.

The argument states that in the past 40 years SCOTUS has overstepped its bounds, and the political class is a willing participant in continuing this.

You can make that argument all day, but it is meaningless without both evidence to support it and legal experts to make the case.

So basically only legal experts can comment on the constitution now? Again your oligarchical leanings are showing.

 

[paperview]

• 

Nice response. deeek.

Thanks!

 

[Skylar]

It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution.

Says you. But your logic doesn't hold up.

How can you 'add' a reserve right? They already exist. Remember, reserve rights, by their very definition are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Per the bizarre standard you're applying, the recognition of any reserve right is 'adding to the constitution'. And thus, forbidden.

An argument that would render the entire 9th amendment, its purpose, and the goal of the founders in creating it entirely moot. Why would the founders declare that there are more rights than are listed in the constitution, only to forbid any of them ever being recognized or protected?

Your claims make absolutely no sense. Reserve rights already exist. They are by definition, unenumerated. And recognizing such rights doesn't 'create' them. It merely protects them. The BoR isn't an exhaustive list, as the 9th amendment makes clear. Eliminating any requirement that a right be enumerated to exist.

Again, I'm not going to ignore the Supreme Court on what rights exist and instead believe you, Marty. I don't consider you an appropriately relevant, knowledgeable or authoritative source on the topic.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

Says you. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

So you ignore the 9th amendment. Neither I nor the courts choose to do so.

 

[orogenicman]

It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution. Considering cell phones to be something that requires a warrant is interpreting, creating a right to an abortion or gay marriage is ADDING, without using the actual process of adding something.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

In the document:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[martybegan]

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution.

Says you. But your logic doesn't hold up.

How can you 'add' a reserve right? They already exist. Remember, reserve rights, by their very definition are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Per the bizarre standard you're applying, the recognition of any reserve right is 'adding to the constitution'. And thus, forbidden.

An argument that would render the entire 9th amendment, its purpose, and the goal of the founders in creating it entirely moot. Why would the founders declare that there are more rights than are listed in the constitution, only to forbid any of them ever being recognized or protected?

Your claims make absolutely no sense. Reserve rights already exist. They are by definition, unenumerated. And recognizing such rights doesn't 'create' them. It merely protects them. The BoR isn't an exhaustive list, as the 9th amendment makes clear. Eliminating any requirement that a right be enumerated to exist.

Again, I'm not going to ignore the Supreme Court on what rights exist and instead believe you, Marty. I don't consider you an appropriately relevant, knowledgeable or authoritative source on the topic.

How are they adding them to start? They base them on other amendments, such as the 14th,which was voted in through the amendment process. Are you saying courts can basically make rights up as they see fit? So if a judge decides I have the right to walk around with a fuzzy plush non harming hammer and bonk people in the head, its A-OK and they don't have any recourse to deny said right?

If the federal courts want to decide something is a right, they need a basis for it, and making stuff up based on amendments, when the amendments clearly did not intend for said expansion is sheer laziness, nothing more.

And YOUR deference to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers shows your oligarchical leanings, same as other on this thread.

 

[martybegan]

Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution. Considering cell phones to be something that requires a warrant is interpreting, creating a right to an abortion or gay marriage is ADDING, without using the actual process of adding something.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

In the document:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don;t see where it says marriage in there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no right to compel an individual to bake your cake. There is a right to go into any bakery and buy any cake that is for sale.

To find that one person has the right to compel the labor of another against their will is to reintroduce slavery.

You're mixing up rights and powers. The requirement to treat customers fairly and equally in business is founded in a State's power to regulate intrastate commerce. And selling a product or service publically is most definitely commerce.

That's why anyone should be able to go into any business and buy what's available for sale.

That was the case with the bakers. Each had (and still has) a catalog of standard wedding cake designs posted in their online catalog available for purchase.


>>>>

 

[orogenicman]

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution. Considering cell phones to be something that requires a warrant is interpreting, creating a right to an abortion or gay marriage is ADDING, without using the actual process of adding something.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

In the document:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don;t see where it says marriage in there.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". What part of this do you not understand?

 

[martybegan]

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution. Considering cell phones to be something that requires a warrant is interpreting, creating a right to an abortion or gay marriage is ADDING, without using the actual process of adding something.

Its not that only enumerated rights exist, its that only enumerated rights are PROTECTED by the constitution. Any right can be retained by the people, for it to be protected it has to be IN THE DOCUMENT.

In the document:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don;t see where it says marriage in there.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". What part of this do you not understand?

That operates under the assumption that gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage under existing law. State legislatures can change their laws on marriage contracts to make that so, but I see no right in the Federal Constitution that forces states to do so.

There is almost no historical precedent for same sex marriage contracts ever existing. If States want to change it via legislative action, fine, I would probably vote for it, but the Courts have not standing to force it down people's throats.

 

[Skylar]

And the 9th amendment explicitly states that there are reserve rights not enumerated in the constitution. Yet you summarily dismissed it and the entire concept.

Explicit mention in the constitution isn't your standard. Convenience to your argument is. Which is one of the reasons I don't hold your constitutional opinion in high regard.

The 9th doesn't say the courts get to make up those rights as they go along, what it does is says other rights can be added, which properly get added via amendment if you want a federal court to decide if the government can impact it or not.

How can you 'make up' a reserve right? Wouldn't that right already exist? The 9th amendment certainly indicates as much.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

If the people retained no reserve rights, how could you deny or disparage them. The 9th amendment makes it clear that such rights already exist.

Thus the courts are merely *recognizing* rights that already exist, as part of their job of interpreting the constitution. And interpreting the constitution is very much what they are supposed to do. Says who? Says the Federalist Papers;

T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

I'm simply not going to ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you citing yourself, Marty. They're tasked with the job of interpreting the constitution. You're not.

And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts your claims that only enumerated rights exist. Making any 'but its not in the constitution' argument meaningless. As a right need not be in the constitution to be retained by the people.

They are not interpreting, they are ADDING to the constitution.

Says you. But your logic doesn't hold up.

How can you 'add' a reserve right? They already exist. Remember, reserve rights, by their very definition are NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Per the bizarre standard you're applying, the recognition of any reserve right is 'adding to the constitution'. And thus, forbidden.

An argument that would render the entire 9th amendment, its purpose, and the goal of the founders in creating it entirely moot. Why would the founders declare that there are more rights than are listed in the constitution, only to forbid any of them ever being recognized or protected?

Your claims make absolutely no sense. Reserve rights already exist. They are by definition, unenumerated. And recognizing such rights doesn't 'create' them. It merely protects them. The BoR isn't an exhaustive list, as the 9th amendment makes clear. Eliminating any requirement that a right be enumerated to exist.

Again, I'm not going to ignore the Supreme Court on what rights exist and instead believe you, Marty. I don't consider you an appropriately relevant, knowledgeable or authoritative source on the topic.

How are they adding them to start? They base them on other amendments, such as the 14th,which was voted in through the amendment process.

They cite the 14th amendment in many case as it was the 14th amendment that applied the BoR to the States. Before the 14th, the BoR didn't limit the States. But only the Federal government.

Are you saying courts can basically make rights up as they see fit? So if a judge decides I have the right to walk around with a fuzzy plush non harming hammer and bonk people in the head, its A-OK and they don't have any recourse to deny said right?

I'm saying exactly what I've said: that the courts are tasked with interpreting the constitution. And that the 9th amendment makes it clear that there are more rights retained by the people than are enumerated. You say that only enumerated rights can be protected or recognized.

The 9th amendment proves you wrong:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

That you summarily dismiss the 9th, reserve rights, and the very purpose of the amendment changes nothing. The 9th amendment still exists, reserve rights still exist, and no right requires enumeration to exist.

Thus, the courts in their role as authoritative interpretators of the meaning of the constitution can and should recognize reserve rights. And protect them.

If the federal courts want to decide something is a right, they need a basis for it, and making stuff up based on amendments, when the amendments clearly did not intend for said expansion is sheer laziness, nothing more.

They do have a basis. You merely disagree with that basis. But the legitimacy of their judgments aren't based on your agreement. Your disagreement or agreement offers us no qualitative value on the validity of their interpretations nor their constitutional authority to make them.

Your only source is you, Marty. And you aren't enough. That you disagree with the basis of a court's ruling isn't enough. That you wish to ignore the 9th amendment because its inconvenient to your argument isn't enough.

 

[Skylar]

That operates under the assumption that gay marriage is equal to hetero marriage under existing law.

More accurately, it works under the assumptions that the rights of gays are equal to the rights of heterosexuals.

Which, of course, they are.

State legislatures can change their laws on marriage contracts to make that so, but I see no right in the Federal Constitution that forces states to do so.

State laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. If a state's laws violate those guarantees, the federal government has the authority to overturn those laws. Again, read the 14th amendment. It explicitly prohibits States from applying unequal protection under the law or the violation of the privileges and immunities of the US citizens.

Placing State law as subordinate to constitutional guarantees. And *every* ruling overturning of State marriage laws has been on the basis of the violation of the very constitutional guarantees that all State marriage laws are subject to.