Truth in love
Well-Known Member
The Constitution list things the Feds may do and prohibits anything else. All the "else" would be unlawful as it violates the Constitution.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fascism Plan F
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
I think the ninth amendment indicates the exact opposite. The federal government could determine that healthcare is a right, and you might disagree, but it would not be unconstitutional. Just because a right is not listed in the constitution does not mean it does not exist.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
How does this mean that feds can invent a right?
Don’t play word games. It means they can recognize a right that is not enumerated in the constitution. It means you can’t argue that a right does not exist because they didn’t list it.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It really isn't that simple as there are a great many possibilities that are not covered directly in the Constitution, which is one reason why we have both amendments and federal courts.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
How is the text of what you referenced a word game?
Its rights of the people not congress.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
"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."
Please let me know which part is confusing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm not confused on this, maybe because I taught it for 25 years.
The Constitution is the law of the land, but it does not include all the possibilities of what laws may or may not be constitutional-- thus the need for the courts. There's a saying we often use, namely that "The Constitution is what the courts say it is", as absurd as that may seem.
For just one example, are there any limits to "freedom of speech"? Obviously there can be as the courts say there can be, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if there's no fire, or defamation of character, etc.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
Yes that is absurd and no lawyer worth their salt would accept such in a contract.
Lets look at this logic in a fake situation " The contract says Party A must pay Party B $5,000 by the 15th of May 2022... Which means Party A may may up to 500 to Party B whenever they want to."
Such insane interpretations will destroy any system of law.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What in the world are you talking about in your example? Which "contract"?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
The Constitution is a legal contract between we the people.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thanks for clarifying what you posted, but the mistake you've made is to simplify the Constitution well beyond reality as it's really not that simple.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
I stand by it.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, then you have accepted your own "constitution", thus not the one here in the U.S.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
So I think the law is what is says and that is not what done in the US?
So what law does the US use?