Most important right guaranteed by the Constitution...

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Mr Crowley,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That only specifies and reiterates the limit of power put on the Federal government. While you are reading the amendments pay special attention to the one that read the powers not granted to the Fed are retained by the states or the people. If the COTUS 'guarentees' our rights by granting them, how can the people retain what is not specifically granted? Cherry picking and taking out of context is how the old people have put the country in this mess to begin with.

Selena

 

[Mr Crowley]

If the COTUS 'guarentees' our rights by granting them, how can the people retain what is not specifically granted?

Are you asking how something can be retained if it was never granted to you?

 

[Mr Crowley]

powers not granted to the Fed are retained by the states or the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Cherry picking and taking out of context is how the old people have put the country in this mess to begin with.

how can the people retain what is not specifically granted?
-because it is not specifically prohibited-by either cotus/congress/state/local



That's like saying "I have the right to walk across the room"
Technically you were never specifically granted the right walk across the room.
However, you were never specifically prohibited from walking across the room.

So I would say you do have the right to walk across the room.
For 1 of three reasons.
1. Constituion grants that right -- not in this case
2. Constituion/fed/state/local prohibits that right -- not in this case
3. Constitution/fed/state/local neither grants nor prohibits -- yes

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Mr Crowley.

how can the people retain what is not specifically granted?
-because it is not specifically prohibited-by either cotus/congress/state/local

*sigh*

The founders believed that all rights are in the hands of the people. The COTUS was inspired by a pamplent written by a guy named Rousseau called "The Social Contract." The social contract is that in order to achieve certain aims we surpress certain rights to give power to the government. Those powers NOT given to the gov are retained by the people. The COTUS and the constitutions of the various states are not prohibitions to the people rather the granting of a limited set of powers to the fed and the individual state. Those powers not granted to the fed or state belong to the individual not the state. The theory of limited government does NOT limit the rights of the individual but limits the power of the state.

The old guys from the sixties have turned limited government to the exact opposite of what the founders intended. They have always believed themselves to be right when in fact they have merely been more numerous.

 

[RobXD9]

devildog: So far as I know the Bill of Rights does not guarantee nor grant rights but it ennumerates the rights considered to be inalienable by the drafters of the document.

Tha said, there is NO amendment guaranteeing nor ennumerating the right to vote. The Constitution only specifies that voting cannot be denied due to race, creed, color, gender, etc.

I would argue the Constitution does in fact recognize the right to vote.

While you are absolutely correct that the Constitution states that voting can not be denied for the reasons you mentioned, the Amendments in fact state, "The right of the citizens to vote..."

Granted there is a qualifier on the end (based on race, sex etc...).

That said, I find it startling that many of our more recent amendments have the clause that states, "Congress has the power to enforce this amendment with appropriate legislation."

Which means in fact the Congress could choose NOT to enforce the law with legislation.

 

[RPCVYemen]

And these rights are spelled out in a specific order because those have a hierarchical order to them in order of importance as well. That is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Let's be clear that the preamble does not state that. The allegedly inalienable rights theory is from the Declaration of Independence, which is a decade or so earlier than the Constitution, and was ratified (formally) solely by its signers.

The Constitution explains its goals without reference to those rights - it's much more utilitarian:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's what was ratified.

I still maintain that since only the right to vote can in fact eliminate other rights, then it may be the most important. I don't see any (theoretical) reason that the a Constitutional Convention could not nullify all of the other rights in the BoR.

That being said, I consider this a weak argument - I think that they all work together. Lincoln proved that you can change votes by imprisoning people w/o due process.

Mike