Monday, June 29, 2015

Rights?

     I've seen a few commentators fume about the Supreme Court "finding new rights," often followed by disparaging remarks about "emanations" and "penumbras" sufficient to make me worry about the kimchi. 

     Still, they have a point; if there'd been any need for other rights, I'm sure some provision would have been made for Teh Gummint to recognize them, something along the lines of, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Crazy talk, right?

    

5 comments:

Joe in PNG said...

If people try to use "States Rights" and "The Will of the People*" to deny rights to other people they don't like, they shouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS/ Fed Gov step in to make some changes. And whining about the inevitably clumsy way the SCOTUS/ Fed Gov goes about it won't help. Stop denying rights to people, and you won't give them these opportunities to step in.


*Also know as "Tyranny of the Majority" in the Federalist Papers.

D.W. Drang said...

Reading between the lines here and on The Porch, I get the feeling you and Tamara are telling me I should be grateful that Facebook changed the locks and told me to go away.

rickn8or said...

Or as my d-i-l stated "My FB feed looks like a battle broke out between the Confederates and a Skittles factory."

Will Brown said...

While I quite agree with your general observation, I personally would be happier if the Supreme Court would just go ahead and say so ("Look, 9th Amendment; Congress followed the rules, for once.") instead of going all Kabuki with their 14th Amendment Origami skilz.

Joseph said...

Does the word "retained" mean anything here?