Repeal of DADT Has Passed

[DinoDoc]

You're familiar with the 9th Amendment, right?

I thought they rested Roe on a bizarre interpretation of the due process clause because as Justice Douglas stated in Doe v Bolton "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

[Elok]

So, is there any limit on the "rights" the SCOTUS can assert? Any check or balance on that, aside from what at least five of the nine members can agree on?

[Solomwi]

And it doesn't. It does, however, mean that the BoR is not an exhaustive list of rights. In other words, it directly refutes HC's reasoning that a right doesn't exist if not enumerated. Marriage is a pretty good example.

[Hauldren Collider]

And it doesn't. It does, however, mean that the BoR is not an exhaustive list of rights. In other words, it directly refutes HC's reasoning that a right doesn't exist if not enumerated. Marriage is a pretty good example.

Marriage is defined by the states and is recognized by other states under the full faith and credit clause.

I'm not denying the existence of implied powers, I think that implied rights is taking things a bit far.

[Hauldren Collider]

I thought they rested Roe on a bizarre interpretation of the due process clause because as Justice Douglas stated in Doe v Bolton "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

The Roe v. Wade decision is a ludicrous abuse of due process to mean that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the constitution, and that means you can't stop women from killing their babies...It makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Solomwi]

Marriage is defined by the states and is recognized by other states under the full faith and credit clause.

I'm not denying the existence of implied powers, I think that implied rights is taking things a bit far.

I'm not sure why you think that matters, especially in light of the 14th Amendment (specifically the Due Process Clause). Marriage is recognized as a fundamental right that predates the Constitution, with the result that it is part of the "liberty" neither the federal (5th) nor a state (14th) government can deprive you of without due process. Yet it's not enumerated.

It's not a matter of implied rights, though those certainly exist anytime a government of limited powers is established. It's a matter of pre-existing rights which are simply not enumerated in the BoR. It's also a recognition that the BoR is not the source of fundamental rights. It protects them, but does not create them.

[Solomwi]

The Roe v. Wade decision is a ludicrous abuse of due process to mean that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the constitution, and that means you can't stop women from killing their babies...It makes absolutely no sense to me.

"Right to privacy" is a horrible phrase. It means whatever its user wants or needs it to mean, which means it ultimately means very little, if anything. It's a broad, vague term that encompasses everything from enumerated rights (4th and 5th Amendments) to relatively newly created rights (informed consent for medical procedures) to things that probably aren't rights at all. I'm pro-abortion (not pro-choice, those guys are weak-kneed pussies), but have a hard time reconciling access to a particular medical procedure as a fundamental right.

[Hauldren Collider]

"Right to privacy" is a horrible phrase. It means whatever its user wants or needs it to mean, which means it ultimately means very little, if anything. It's a broad, vague term that encompasses everything from enumerated rights (4th and 5th Amendments) to relatively newly created rights (informed consent for medical procedures) to things that probably aren't rights at all. I'm pro-abortion (not pro-choice, those guys are weak-kneed pussies), but have a hard time reconciling access to a particular medical procedure as a fundamental right.

I haven't formulated an opinion on early abortions (first trimester I guess?), but personally I can't tell the difference between partial birth abortion and infanticide. They seem essentially identical. Constitutionally, I don't think any abortion is protected and believe it falls under the 10th amendment. Policywise, I don't know what would be best. But the constitution is not where we determine public policy, it's where we protect ourselves from utterly catastrophic public policy.

And I totally agree with you with respect to "right to privacy".

[DaShi]

@how thick DD is.

[MrFun]

The Roe v. Wade decision is a ludicrous abuse of due process to mean that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the constitution, and that means you can't stop women from killing their babies...It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Right to privacy, like any other right, is a legitimate right when you exercise it without denying another PERSON'S rights.

It's still controversial/debateable whether a fetus is a person in early development has rights over the pregnant woman's rights.

[Kuciwalker]

And the Constitution is wholly silent on that issue, so the courts should properly defer to the legislature.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Roe v. Wade decision is a ludicrous abuse of due process to mean that there is such a thing as a right to privacy in the constitution

Right to privacy, including reproductive privacy stems not from Roe, but Griswold v. Connecticut (ie, the birth control case), so Roe was an extension of that recognized right, not one which first articulated it.

[Kuciwalker]

It is fascinating how the right to privacy doesn't seem to cover, say, marijuana use...

[MrFun]

Or cocaine use, meth use, and so on.