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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
10. We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth)
Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:27 PM
Dec 2012

And a right to own property (English common law, also protected by the ninth, fourth, and fifth).

We don't have a specific right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

You have a right to drive a car in your back field until the wheels fall off. Lots of "farm vehicles" are driven by teenagers without licenses or insurance, or heck even registration.

It's when you get out onto public roads that you turn from a right to a privilege.

eta: hit submit instead of preview..

As far as guns, the right to arms pre-dates the constitution, but having an explicit protection helps.

From US v Cruikshank (1876)-

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."


Obviously, the line about Congress isn't true anymore in light of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of 'select incorporation', but the core stands.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Because of the stupid fucking 2nd amendment LibAsHell Dec 2012 #1
I always have had the faith that law, in the long run, is fair and impartial ... srican69 Dec 2012 #5
The Constitution? n/t jmg257 Dec 2012 #2
Cars are not in the Bill of Rights. Guns are. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #3
Because there were no motor vehicles in 1789? yellowcanine Dec 2012 #4
+1 joeybee12 Dec 2012 #6
+1 SugarShack Dec 2012 #13
The basis for the "right" is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #7
It has only been interpreted that way for 4 years. If you throw you lot with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, byeya Dec 2012 #14
Even if one concedes that it is an individual right though it does not mean no regulation. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #19
Absolutely DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #31
The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for jody Dec 2012 #8
I'd be fine... LP2K12 Dec 2012 #9
We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth) X_Digger Dec 2012 #10
The Constitution. Also, public roads Recursion Dec 2012 #11
Prior to 2008 it was perfectly legit for a jurisdiction to ban handguns. In 2008, the Filthy Five of byeya Dec 2012 #12
The 4 minority justices recognized the right, citing PA & VT constitutions but held the 2nd was not jody Dec 2012 #15
translation please ... I have a PhD in systems engineering but somehow its not helping srican69 Dec 2012 #16
Perhaps you need to read the Heller decision. I'm not impressed by your PhD. jody Dec 2012 #18
what !! really srican69 Dec 2012 #21
Big deal what if I claimed to have two? Would that impress you? nt jody Dec 2012 #23
Honestly - it would. srican69 Dec 2012 #29
It most certainly does not. You are wrong. You are spreading NRA lies. byeya Dec 2012 #17
Read the Heller decision and cite passages to rebut my assertion. jody Dec 2012 #20
Delicate Flowers always get the 2nd Amendment wrong bongbong Dec 2012 #25
Your posts suggest you have not read the Heller opinion and dissent. I would give you a link but in jody Dec 2012 #28
LOL bongbong Dec 2012 #30
Yes, there are a number of parrots spreading NRA lies on DU bongbong Dec 2012 #26
In 1981 Morton Grove. IL. banned the ownership of handguns and on appeal the appeals byeya Dec 2012 #22
It would be a right were we writing the Constitution today in the spirt of those writing it then. ieoeja Dec 2012 #24
Serious answer, in my mind a flawed interpretation nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»another legal question. W...»Reply #10