Texas bans abortion

SCOTUS doesn’t invent rights. Their opinions are what the constitution means.

The right to privacy is in the constitution.

SCOTUS says so.

Allan

there opinions are binding on lower courts. thats it, the constitution says so. the constitution means what it means no matter what their opinion is.

Where?

SCOTUS said it’s there so it’s there.

Or any of the other opinions that they offer every year.

The right to marry the person of your choice,

The right to join the armed forces if you are gay.

See how that works.

Plenty of rights not enumerated in the constitution.

That you have.

Allan

SCOTUS said it’s there so it’s there.

Even if it’s not there? Can you even quote the sentence where SCOTUS says “It’s there”?

Implied. Nuanced. Subtle.

Allan

Horse ■■■■

2 Likes

[quote=“SneakySFDude, post:2555, topic:240046”]Can
n you even quote the sentence where SCOTUS says “It’s there”?
[/quote]
See Griswold v Connecticut, 381US at 484

“. . . specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy.”

Do you know what a “penumbra” is?

Of course. It’s even defined in the opinion. The whole point of Griswold was that the enumerated rights can’t have meaning if taken literally. The precedent for this was in non-political speech, assembly and association cases. Without penumbras from the First Amendment non-political activity would not be completely protected. Read Griswold if you have not already done so.

The Court stated (p. 482)

“ the association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents’ choice – whether public or private or parochial – is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.”

:rofl: Amazing.

The right of association is in the Constitution, the first amendment.

There is no right to educate a child in a school of the parent’s choice.

“Construed” by whom?

That is not accurate. Before the 20th century, associations rights were limited to political association. Read Griswold. The SCOTUS had held that there is a right to educate in the school of choice. Read Griswold.(citing Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska

If you have not read Griswold and digested all of its antecedents then this discussion is not going to go anywhere useful. Also, if you reject the power of SCOTUS to interpret the laws and the Constitution, your opinions are anti-historical and contrary to US Consitutional Law that goes back to the Founding Generation.

1 Like

No, it didn’t.

By whom?

The Courts. The states. I am not going to coy the entire text of Griswold, which is the case that provides the unifying theory of Civil Liberties for the last 56 years, but which draws its basis from the law as developed since the enactment of the 14th Amendment.

:rofl: Thank you.

I notice that you selectively omitted “the States.”

I notice you tried to split up government into tiny pieces.

Principle - the Constitution prohibits government, not citizens.

I have a right to peaceably assemble. That is associate. There are not exceptions, no caveats no “this not that”.

For any reason I choose.

2 Likes

do you know what a dissenting opinion is worth in law?