So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[postman]

Actually, it's implied by the fact that only impeachment can remove the President from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Now there are "implied" rights, that are in the constitution?

So the founding fathers didn't have to write a constitution like that of India,

 

[TNHarley]

So following the 9th amendment is activist?

what does the 9th have to do with a woman aborting her fetus?

What if SCOTUS struck down presumption of innocence

Then they would be fools and a presumption of innocence is outlined in the constitution. Like due process.

the right to marry

Before the govt got involved, yes. But with the government involved, they cant discriminate against the people.

the right to travel

Then they would be fools, as the right to travel is outlined in the constitution. Like the privileges and immunities clause.

 

[TNHarley]

Wrong Answer !!!!

They either both require enumeration, or they both don't require enumeration.

No split decisions. Goose v Gander.

Wrong. A president cant be jailed for manslaughter if a rocket explodes and people die or something like that.

 

[TNHarley]

It includes privileges and immunities.

And you dont understand what that means either lolz
That clause is about a state discriminating against people that live in other states.
Like if Cali said they wont sell weed to people that live in Nevada.

 

[martybegan]

Now there are "implied" rights, that are in the constitution?

So the founding fathers didn't have to write a constitution like that of India,

The Constitution just admits there may be other rights not covered by the federal constitution, maybe covered under State constitutions. It also made that admission to make it know you could add more enumerated rights via the amendment process.

 

[postman]

The immunity of one elected position of the federal government isn't a "right" as applied to the entire population as in the other issues we are discussing.

Apples and concrete masonry units.

If anything, the 9th amendment would grant rights to the people not enumerated in the constitution.

Where article 2 would limit presidential powers to just what's in the construction.

That's a pretty hard blow against any kind of presidential immunity. Remember, it's just a DOJ OLC opinion, that a president has any criminal immunity while in office.

 

[Catsnmeters]

what does the 9th have to do with a woman aborting her fetus?

Roe v Wade was an unenumerated right based on the 9th amendment.

Then they would be fools and a presumption of innocence is outlined in the constitution. Like due process.

Where is presumption of innocence enumerated in the constitution?

Before the govt got involved, yes. But with the government involved, they cant discriminate against the people.

But the point is the right to marriage is not in the constitution. It's an unenumerated right. SCOTUS could revoke it and let states decide if you can marry.

Would you support that?

Then they would be fools, as the right to travel is outlined in the constitution. Like the privileges and immunities clause.

Sort of like abortion was outlined in the constitutions right to privacy?

The right to travel is not enumerated in the constitution. It is an unenumerated right...unless you can show me that enumeration...?

 

[martybegan]

If anything, the 9th amendment would grant rights to the people not enumerated in the constitution.

Where article 2 would limit presidential powers to just what's in the construction.

That's a pretty hard blow against any kind of presidential immunity. Remember, it's just a DOJ OLC opinion, that a president has any criminal immunity while in office.

It doesn't grant them, it recognizes they may exist, even if not enumerated. It allows State Constitutions to declare other rights, as well as opens up the amendment process to adding more enumerated rights.

Immunity is just a word being used to describe the simple fact that only congress can stand in judgement of a sitting president to determine if they should be removed from office or not for crimes.

 

[postman]

What if SCOTUS struck down presumption of innocence,

Then they would be fools and a presumption of innocence is outlined in the constitution. Like due process.

Due process is in the constitution, presumption of innocence is not.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty | Meaning, Origin & Law - Lesson | Study.com

Innocent until proven guilty - what does it mean? Find out the innocent until proven guilty amendments and explore the origins of the presumption...

study.com

The phrases "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumption of innocence" are not found in the Constitution.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The mephiprestone case.

 

[postman]

And you dont understand what that means either lolz
That clause is about a state discriminating against people that live in other states.
Like if Cali said they wont sell weed to people that live in Nevada.

What about Texas said they won't all people that live in another state to sell abortion services to one of their citizens?


Like that?

 

[postman]

The Constitution just admits there may be other rights not covered by the federal constitution, maybe covered under State constitutions. It also made that admission to make it know you could add more enumerated rights via the amendment process.

The supreme court has long held both people and the government have certain "inherent" rights, that didn't have to be enumerated in either the constitution or in law or regulation for them to exist.

Like the right to freely travel. Nowhere is that written down, except in the decisions of the SCOTUS.

 

[TNHarley]

Roe v Wade was an unenumerated right based on the 9th amendment.

If it was, why was there a limit on it? Hint: Because they made that shit up.
The ninth amendment doesnt have much of a role in constitutional law. Do you know why? Because you can make that mean whatever in the hell you want it to mean.

Where is presumption of innocence enumerated in the constitution?

Read what I said again.

But the point is the right to marriage is not in the constitution. It's an unenumerated right. SCOTUS could revoke it and let states decide if you can marry.

Would you support that?

No, because the government is involved. The government cant discriminate against people. Well, it does every fucking day, but it shouldnt.

Sort of like abortion was outlined in the constitutions right to privacy?

What does abortion have to do with privacy? Can i kill someone and it be private, and then i am protected? Jesus christ.

The right to travel is not enumerated in the constitution. It is an unenumerated right...unless you can show me that enumeration...?

Read what I said again

 

[postman]

Immunity is just a word being used to describe the simple fact that only congress can stand in judgement of a sitting president to determine if they should be removed from office or not for crimes.

No, Immunity is used to describe whether the law can hold a president accountable while in office.

 

[martybegan]

The supreme court has long held both people and the government have certain "inherent" rights, that didn't have to be enumerated in either the constitution or in law or regulation for them to exist.

Like the right to freely travel. Nowhere is that written down, except in the decisions of the SCOTUS.

And they enumerated the ones they thought important at the federal level, left it to the States to enumerate others, and left the amendment process open to add more at the federal level.

That is implied by the requirement that States treat documents issued from other States with full faith and credit, along with the 14th amendment granting rights to all federal citizens regardless of where they are from or where they want to go within the US.

 

[martybegan]

No, Immunity is used to describe whether the law can hold a president accountable while in office.

And is based on the fact only congress can remove and judge a sitting president, and the federal constitution overrides all State Constitutions and laws.

 

[TNHarley]

What about Texas said they won't all people that live in another state to sell abortion services to one of their citizens?


Like that?

Huh? Are you talking about a texan going to another state and having an abortion, and then texas punishing them when they return? Completely unconstitutional.

 

[TNHarley]

The supreme court has long held both people and the government have certain "inherent" rights, that didn't have to be enumerated in either the constitution or in law or regulation for them to exist.

Like the right to freely travel. Nowhere is that written down, except in the decisions of the SCOTUS.

It doesnt have the words, but the right itself exists in other rights.

 

[justoffal]

They overturned Roe vs. Wade, a direct infringement upon the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Fathers would not have even revolted against the British crown had they been allowed to murder their unborn babies.

Nothing wrong with paying for your own sexual habits.

 

[postman]

That is implied by the requirement that States treat documents issued from other States with full faith and credit, along with the 14th amendment granting rights to all federal citizens regardless of where they are from or where they want to go within the US.

States are not required to treat documents issued from other states with full faith and credit.
Example: A concealed carry permit, or gun license in one state, does not have to be recognized by another.
Nor does a drivers license from one state, doesn't have to be recognized by another.
Unless the requirements for the same, exist in their state.