Redstate

Are we talking about the US Constitution or the California Constitution? Presumably, SCOTSOC is charged with upholding the latter, not the former.

N/T

That is a oversimplification of the Constitution. Does the Constitution have to specifically enumerate the right in order for that right to exist? What about the ninth amendment which reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."?

Does this amendment mean that the right must be recognized by a government at some level in order for that right to exist? I prefer the Founder's view of self-evident rights instead of us forcing ourselves to enumerate everything. What could be more fundamental a right than that which goes with the duty of parenting? It just seems idiotic that we have to look to certain keywords in our Constitution in order to protect that right. The Supreme Court has agreed repeatedly with parental rights as an unenumerated fundamental right (see 9th amendment).

Here is the court from the famous Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925):

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

In this case the state of Oregon tried to outlaw Catholic schools because the protestants in control wanted to indoctrinate Catholic children to their way of thinking. That isn't much different from what the teacher's unions are trying to do in California today.

the principle of inaleinable rights cited in the Declaration, but the main question remains:

How are these rights defined and by whom?

Capital "L" Liberty means the right of self government, consent by consent of the governed by We The People, not by judges.

The Creator does not issue an enumeration of small "l", liberties from on high.

We the People meant we no longer had same defined by a King.

We define rights in states and via congress.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Is that it allows for arguments like the following:

"Inter-racial marriage is not an enumerated right. Show me where marriage is in the Constitution! If White Folk want to get married, they can! They just have to marry other white folk! Look, Virginia got together and their *ELECTED* officials made a *LAW* that said that inter-racial marriage was *ILLEGAL*. It shouldn't be up to the courts to overturn We The People."

I've long held the belief that if your argument towards the role of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary allows for arguments such as "Dred Scott was decided correctly" or "Loving vs. Virginia was legislating from the bench", your philosophy towards the role of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary is doomed.

But Gamecock and I have argued this many a time before.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I am not arguing that because a right is not enumerated that it does not exist. On the contrary, the rule is that all things are legal except for those the state or fed govt makes illegal subject to the constitutions of each.

The Us Constitution's purpose was to create a limited powers fed govt. It was created by the states.

So if a legislature makes a think illegal, the courts can only strike it down if one can find the right in the constitution.

Otherwise we would have traded a king for 5 oligarchs rather than we the people self government by consent of the governed.

The founders considered our system as better to protect the inalienable rights than a king.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The founders recognized that rights did not have to be listed in order to exist. HOWEVER, liberals have denied that principle since the Massachusetts Militia rounded up the children of those who did not like Horace Mann's new law requiring that children attend schools of the state's choice.

Our government is made up of bureaucrats who want more power, budget, and better retirement benefits. Hence, they will do ANYTHING to get more state power because more state power means more budget for them. Confucius recognized this millennia ago; Google "Confucian Cycle" for more information.

for union thugs to indoctrinate children against the will of their parents. Wake Up!
The best government is the least government.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

I find this vein of argument completely odious.

It's my opinion that any style of argument used in order to defend separate drinking fountains is one that ought to bring a flush of blood to the ears of the listener.

For shame.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

People used to use the Bible to justify slavery, for example, ignoring the passages where the Bible clearly teaches against it. Does that mean that the Bible is invalid?

Fan of
http://www.scragged.com

bird is an atheist.
The bible argument probably won't work on him.

It is true/good whether or not the Bible says it is (or even if it says it is not).

If a thing is false/wrong, it is false/wrong whether or not the Bible says it is (or even if it says it is not).

The Bible contains some great stuff (seriously, read Job again. Read Ecclesiastes again. Read Esther again.) but, as has been pointed out ad nauseum... lobster ain't an abomination.

And we all know it.

Even though the Bible says lobster is.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The Constitution does not articulate all of the rights that people have.

Parental Rights are long established in common law and our English heritage.