6 ms·

It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th

It's actually written in the Constitution that we as Americans enjoy many rights that aren't explicitly written in the text. It's in the 9th amendment and 14th amendment due process clause. The 14th, to me, encompasses everything that it means to be American: self-autonomy. The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause.

newaccount2021 4y ago
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless. Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people". Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  How does this relate to this issue? I don't see that the SCOTUS has contradicted the 9th by saying what isn't in the constitution.
lesstyzing 4y ago
If the constitution is so vague that different judges will interpret it completely differently (and it "encompasses everything that it means to be American"), you need to fix the constitution. Having judges interpret vague things the way the people of the day want is a recipe for...exactly what's happening now.
_dain_ 4y ago
- Sparkle-san 4y ago
  Abortion wasn't made illegal in most states until the mid 1800s. Benjamin Franklin even published information on what can be used to perform an abortion in one of this books.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    Wrong, this is refuted at length in the Dobbs ruling. >That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 429–430 (emphasis added). As Blackstone explained, to be “murder” a killing had to be done with “malice aforethought, . . . either express or implied.” 4 Blackstone 198 (emphasis deleted). In the case of an abortionist, Blackstone wrote, “the law will imply [malice]” for the same reason that it would imply malice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a different person: >“[I]f one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder; because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other. The same is the case, where one lays poison for A; and B, against whom the prisoner had no malicious intent, takes it, and it kills him; this is likewise murder. So also, if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it.” Id., at 200–201 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).29 >Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be “with quick child”—only that she be “with child.” Id., at 201. And it is revealing that Hale and Blackstone treated abortionists differently from other physicians or surgeons who caused the death of a patient “without any intent of doing [the patient] any bodily hurt.” Hale 429; see 4 Blackstone 197. These other physicians—even if “unlicensed”—would not be “guilty of murder or manslaughter.” Hale 429. But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an “unlawful” one. >In sum, although common-law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common-law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. >In this country, the historical record is similar. The “most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 594 (2008), reported Blackstone’s statement that abortion of a quick child was at least “a heinous misdemeanor,” 2 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 129–130 (1803), and that edition also included Blackstone’s discussion of the proto-felony-murder rule, 5 id., at 200–201. Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication “unlawfully to destroy the child” would be guilty of murder if the woman died. See, e.g., J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788); 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762) (English manual stating the same).30 >The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases). In Maryland in 1652, for example, an indictment charged that a man “Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb.” Proprietary v. Mitchell, 10 Md. Archives 80, 183 (1652) (W. Browne ed. 1891). And by the 19th century, courts frequently explained that the common law made abortion of a quick child a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 (1851); State v. Cooper, 22 N. J. L. 52, 52–55 (1849); Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 264–268 (1845). Ben Franklin could publish what he liked; that didn't make it legal, or a right.
wilsonnb3 4y ago
> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.
the_solenoid 4y ago
I thought we have inalienable rights, and the constitution is there to carve out where we DONT have them. http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-rights-defining-a-negative-rights-constitution/ http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...
tshaddox 4y ago
> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. Lest they be accused of inconsistency, this Supreme Court likely intends to remove any existing protections for those rights as well.

newaccount2021 4y ago

rhinoceraptor 4y ago

The issue there is the reactionaries who claim to be 'textualists' and 'originalists' have all but decided the ninth amendment is meaningless. Scalia said, "the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people". Of course, anyone with a brain can see that Scalia was the first to abandon textualism or the reactionary idea that judges should not engage in 'judicial activism' whenever they came in conflict with conservative policy.

Chris2048 4y ago
How does this relate to this issue? I don't see that the SCOTUS has contradicted the 9th by saying what isn't in the constitution.

lesstyzing 4y ago

If the constitution is so vague that different judges will interpret it completely differently (and it "encompasses everything that it means to be American"), you need to fix the constitution. Having judges interpret vague things the way the people of the day want is a recipe for...exactly what's happening now.

_dain_ 4y ago

Sparkle-san 4y ago
Abortion wasn't made illegal in most states until the mid 1800s. Benjamin Franklin even published information on what can be used to perform an abortion in one of this books.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  Wrong, this is refuted at length in the Dobbs ruling. >That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule. Hale and Blackstone explained a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide. Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman “with child” a “potion” to cause an abortion, and the woman died, it was “murder” because the potion was given “unlawfully to destroy her child within her.” 1 Hale 429–430 (emphasis added). As Blackstone explained, to be “murder” a killing had to be done with “malice aforethought, . . . either express or implied.” 4 Blackstone 198 (emphasis deleted). In the case of an abortionist, Blackstone wrote, “the law will imply [malice]” for the same reason that it would imply malice if a person who intended to kill one person accidentally killed a different person: >“[I]f one shoots at A and misses him, but kills B, this is murder; because of the previous felonious intent, which the law transfers from one to the other. The same is the case, where one lays poison for A; and B, against whom the prisoner had no malicious intent, takes it, and it kills him; this is likewise murder. So also, if one gives a woman with child a medicine to procure abortion, and it operates so violently as to kill the woman, this is murder in the person who gave it.” Id., at 200–201 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).29 >Notably, Blackstone, like Hale, did not state that this proto-felony-murder rule required that the woman be “with quick child”—only that she be “with child.” Id., at 201. And it is revealing that Hale and Blackstone treated abortionists differently from other physicians or surgeons who caused the death of a patient “without any intent of doing [the patient] any bodily hurt.” Hale 429; see 4 Blackstone 197. These other physicians—even if “unlicensed”—would not be “guilty of murder or manslaughter.” Hale 429. But a physician performing an abortion would, precisely because his aim was an “unlawful” one. >In sum, although common-law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common-law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. >In this country, the historical record is similar. The “most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 594 (2008), reported Blackstone’s statement that abortion of a quick child was at least “a heinous misdemeanor,” 2 St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 129–130 (1803), and that edition also included Blackstone’s discussion of the proto-felony-murder rule, 5 id., at 200–201. Manuals for justices of the peace printed in the Colonies in the 18th century typically restated the common-law rule on abortion, and some manuals repeated Hale’s and Blackstone’s statements that anyone who prescribed medication “unlawfully to destroy the child” would be guilty of murder if the woman died. See, e.g., J. Parker, Conductor Generalis 220 (1788); 2 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace, and Parish Officer 221–222 (7th ed. 1762) (English manual stating the same).30 >The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. See generally Dellapenna 215–228 (collecting cases). In Maryland in 1652, for example, an indictment charged that a man “Murtherously endeavoured to destroy or Murther the Child by him begotten in the Womb.” Proprietary v. Mitchell, 10 Md. Archives 80, 183 (1652) (W. Browne ed. 1891). And by the 19th century, courts frequently explained that the common law made abortion of a quick child a crime. See, e.g., Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 (1851); State v. Cooper, 22 N. J. L. 52, 52–55 (1849); Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. 263, 264–268 (1845). Ben Franklin could publish what he liked; that didn't make it legal, or a right.

wilsonnb3 4y ago

> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. The rights to choose your sexual partner and marry outside your race are also established in the Equal Protection clause, which gives them a stronger basis in the constitution than birth control and abortion which solely rely on substantive due process.

the_solenoid 4y ago

I thought we have inalienable rights, and the constitution is there to carve out where we DONT have them. http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-rights-defining-a-negative-rights-constitution/ http://www.notguiltynj.com/our-constitution-doesnt-give-us-r...

tshaddox 4y ago

> The right to marry outside our race, the right to choose our sexual partner, the right to birth control are established in the due process clause. Lest they be accused of inconsistency, this Supreme Court likely intends to remove any existing protections for those rights as well.