CNN claims abortion was a "Constitutional" right.

dontgojoepa

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2003
2,719
1,100
1
Come on. You're better than this. There are many constitutional rights that implied from reading the text and not expressly enumerated. Article 9 has been interpreted to permit that. And just look at how many areas the federal government legislates based on the Commerce Clause that aren't expressly enumerated.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,164
19,375
1
DFW, TX
Come on. You're better than this. There are many constitutional rights that implied from reading the text and not expressly enumerated. Article 9 has been interpreted to permit that. And just look at how many areas the federal government legislates based on the Commerce Clause that aren't expressly enumerated.

Laws are made to drive all those things.
If they are not deemed unconstitutional they stand.

Does not make them constitutional rights.
 

dontgojoepa

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2003
2,719
1,100
1
Laws are made to drive all those things.
If they are not deemed unconstitutional they stand.

Does not make them constitutional rights.
Where in the Constitution does it say that a State has sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states? You won't find it. But Justice Thomas said it was implied in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maypole

dontgojoepa

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2003
2,719
1,100
1
We're talking about individual constitutional rights here. Give me an example of an individual right that is guaranteed by the commerce clause, please.
Correct. There are no individual "rights" under the Commerce Clause. I was using that merely as an example of the Court's power to go beyond the actual text (which they frequently use). But there are many implied rights in the Constitution.
 

YeOldeCup

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2005
2,732
1,950
1
Correct. There are no individual "rights" under the Commerce Clause. I was using that merely as an example of the Court's power to go beyond the actual text (which they frequently use). But there are many implied rights in the Constitution.
There are zero "implied rights" in the Constitution. They are either stated or not, and in the case of the latter:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is exactly the point of last week's RvW decision. Even RBG knew the original decision was bad.
 

dontgojoepa

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2003
2,719
1,100
1
There are zero "implied rights" in the Constitution. They are either stated or not, and in the case of the latter:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which is exactly the point of last week's RvW decision. Even RBG knew the original decision was bad.
Okay. Will be interesting to see how Thomas rules on the right to interracial marriage, should that come up again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maypole

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,552
5,574
1
Come on. You're better than this. There are many constitutional rights that implied from reading the text and not expressly enumerated. Article 9 has been interpreted to permit that. And just look at how many areas the federal government legislates based on the Commerce Clause that aren't expressly enumerated.
Seems like in this case the constitution was interpreted differently
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

BicyclePete

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
15,055
10,210
1
Okay. Will be interesting to see how Thomas rules on the right to interracial marriage, should that come up again.
Do you know that he's married to a white woman?

clarence-thomas-wife-is-helping-trump-purge-snakes-from-the-white-house-and-replace-them-with-fox-news-regulars.jpg
 

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,286
10,957
1
SE PA
Correct. There are no individual "rights" under the Commerce Clause. I was using that merely as an example of the Court's power to go beyond the actual text (which they frequently use). But there are many implied rights in the Constitution.
So now give us an example of a recognized “Constitutional Right”, other than abortion, that is not expressly spelled out in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,286
10,957
1
SE PA
Okay. Will be interesting to see how Thomas rules on the right to interracial marriage, should that come up again.
Marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, is NOT a Constitutional Right. You really don’t understand this, do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

dontgojoepa

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2003
2,719
1,100
1
Marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, is NOT a Constitutional Right. You really don’t understand this, do you?
So states can ban marriage between a man and a woman? Or a black man and a white woman? The US Supreme Court would disagree. But who knows anymore. Maybe Loving v Virginia will be overturned next.
 
Last edited:

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,011
55,724
1
Come on. You're better than this. There are many constitutional rights that implied from reading the text and not expressly enumerated. Article 9 has been interpreted to permit that. And just look at how many areas the federal government legislates based on the Commerce Clause that aren't expressly enumerated.
To me that is meaningless. What about the rights of the unborn? Dems said that a woman has the right to kill the baby’s up until natural birth. No exceptions. Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues