Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,111 posts)
Tue Jun 7, 2022, 02:38 PM Jun 2022

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 nation’s 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

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LTE: Hey originalists, the Constitution solves your 'deeply rooted' rights quandary (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2022 OP
That doesn't quite work FBaggins Jun 2022 #1
When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room... IF keithbvadu2 Jun 2022 #2
Well said FBaggins Jun 2022 #3
I goofed on the postitioning of #4 keithbvadu2 Jun 2022 #5
We gotta watch out for that big IF. keithbvadu2 Jun 2022 #4
None of the amendments including the Bill of Rights LiberalFighter Jun 2022 #6
Wrong Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2022 #7
Why? Shipwack Jun 2022 #8
The Bill of Rights is what got the remaining states to ratify the Constitution Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jun 2022 #9
Only nine states needed to ratify it and it happened in 1788 LiberalFighter Jun 2022 #10

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
1. That doesn't quite work
Tue Jun 7, 2022, 03:04 PM
Jun 2022

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)
2. When discussing the Constitution in a blog or chat room... IF
Tue Jun 7, 2022, 03:15 PM
Jun 2022

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.

???

LiberalFighter

(50,504 posts)
6. None of the amendments including the Bill of Rights
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 08:36 AM
Jun 2022

were part of the original Constitution

If they were they would not be amendments.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,111 posts)
9. The Bill of Rights is what got the remaining states to ratify the Constitution
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 12:39 PM
Jun 2022

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)
10. Only nine states needed to ratify it and it happened in 1788
Wed Jun 8, 2022, 01:03 PM
Jun 2022


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.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»LTE: Hey originalists, th...