LTE: Hey originalists, the Constitution solves your 'deeply rooted' rights quandary
To the editor: Nicholas Goldberg's column on the Supreme Court's next move after abortion speaks to an important issue what happens next to rights that are not written into the Constitution?
Goldberg does not raise the issue of the 9th Amendment, nor does the draft decision overturning Roe vs. Wade. Justice Samuel Alito states the basis for our rights are written in the Constitution, or if not enumerated, must be "deeply rooted in our nations history and traditions." This reading comes from a 1997 case.
The 9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ratified in 1791, surely this must supersede a 1997 case.
-snip-
The 9th Amendment seems to settle the issue. Strange that judicial "originalists" have ignored this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/letters-editor-hey-originalists-constitution-100037109.html
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)That interpretation of 9A would imply that everything is a right unless the Constitution says that it isn't. You could use the same argument to claim that everyone has a right to a new Lexus every three years at government expense. That obviously isn't part of the history and tradition (that 1997 case)... but 9A says it's a right anyway?
Of course not.
9A is actually pretty consistent with the Glucksberg ruling (rather than one superseding the other). The debate remains, however, re: what that history and tradition actually were (as they relate to abortion)
keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room...
All things not specifically forbidden must be allowed, IF that supports your premise.
All things not specifically allowed must be forbidden, IF that supports your premise.
???
FBaggins
(26,697 posts)I should have just waited.
keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,369 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)were part of the original Constitution
If they were they would not be amendments.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)Shipwack
(2,138 posts)🤔
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)Many were fearful of a strong central government.
It's true it wasn't in the original document but once it had the force of law it was part and parcel.
LiberalFighter
(50,504 posts)Bill of Rights were not introduced into Congress until 1789 and ratified in 1791.
Technically the Constitution as originally ratified did not have the Bill of Rights.
I'm just going to throw this at people that want to use originalism with their argument about the Constitution.