Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
 Damn, I didn't know that this site was a "court of law" and we were arguing legal points.  I guess only lawyers can disagree with a decision by SCOTUS or any other court in your world? Per your post, if one disagrees with a person with a JD after their name he/she are automatically invalidated. |
Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, lots of legal scholars think
Roe and its progeny are terrible decisions, even if they're in sympathy with the outcome. Of course, courts get it wrong sometime, but there's no point in throwing an opinion out there if you're not willing to back it up or are unwilling to have it challenged.
Which brings us to . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
Again, my argument is that a State has the right to determine what rights are granted to their citizens.
|
This to me is an interesting assertion, given your emphasis on the Bill of Rights. The whole concept of the Bill of Rights, the roots of which can be traced to Magna Carta, is that government does
not have the authority to determine what rights it will and will not grant it citizens. Rather the perspective of the Bill of Rights is that the government, which can validly exist only with the consent of the governed, is required to respect the rights that citizens inherently possess. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, people "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." In the view of the Bill of Rights, rights are not granted by the state; rights are held by the people.
At most, government must balance governmental needs with the rights of citizens, but under the Bill of Rights, the burden is always on the government to justify any intrusion on citizen's rights.
Threaded Mode
