A question and why I avoid using terms like... [View all]
...1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. Amendment Rights:
- Certain parties will infer that those rights derive from the named clause. I characterize such inferences as Bullshit. The Bill of Rights, in the 9th Amendment, explains that references to certain rights in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights)". The BoR makes it unarguably clear that rights exist outside, apart from and without the benefit of the Constitution.
- Often, cases in court are brought that seek to define a right by the wording of a certain Amendment and by examining the scope the named protections.
- Rights are attributes of the people, they are exercised by individuals acting alone or in groups and principally require respect from others acting alone or in groups (such as governments and agencies thereof).
- Emphasis mine:
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."
Regarding the freedom of speech: I suggest that the breadth and bounds of the right protected cannot be inferred and are not implied by the 1st Amendment. The various courts have ruled that laws known as "prior restraint" are unconstitutional.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
Should other rights have analogous protections as well?
= new reply since forum marked as read
