Officials identify suspect in shooting that killed 10 at Texas' Santa Fe High School

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but this all started with Adam claiming a constitutional right to buy dynamite.

I am.

So, is a "constitutional right" any right not specifically prohibited by the constitution? Like, the right to drink milk right out of the carton? That's a "constitutional right"? I, and the people who wrote those dictionaries, think a "constitutional right" is one specifically guaranteed by the constitution.

I think you would find, if they were willing to discuss it, that the people who wrote those dictionaries think it's kind of a stupid question. Because the answer is right there in the Constitution, and people who have actually studied it, while they may disagree about the application, are generally pretty clear about the concepts.

Technically, anything beyond the enumerated rights is considered a "power," so we should properly distinguish between "Constitutional rights" (drinking milk from the carton in the privacy of your home, for example, would be a Constitutional right protected from infringement by the government by the 4th Amendment), while prohibiting the exercise of that right would be a Constitutional power held by your mother until you had your own place.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Doesn’t the 9th specifically address that?

Precisely!

[Billy Jingo]

Precisely!

There is the argument that the 9th is effectively rhetorical and there is no true mechanism for enumerating these unenumerated rights.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

There is the argument that the 9th is effectively rhetorical and there is no true mechanism for enumerating these unenumerated rights.

There is always an argument. At least for that Amendment, we have clear evidence of intent. If the USSCt had called privacy an "unenumerated" right instead of a "penumbral" right, a lot of BS might have been avoided. Or not. Some legislators get ugly when Supreme Court justices use big words.

[Norm dePlume]

Technically, anything beyond the enumerated rights is considered a "power," so we should properly distinguish between "Constitutional rights" (drinking milk from the carton in the privacy of your home, for example, would be a Constitutional right protected from infringement by the government by the 4th Amendment), while prohibiting the exercise of that right would be a Constitutional power held by your mother until you had your own place.

Who said the privacy of my home? I'm at Safeway. Show me where the constitution says I can't drink milk right from the carton at Safeway.

[JB]

So, you have nothing. Not surprising.

No dude, I have everything. You have been getting your ass kicked on your gun grabbing and disregard for the dead bullshit. Maybe throw in the towel on this one and just walk away.

[scott]

Depends on the definition of "murder," and I'm not making an anti-Clinton joke here.

Without laws, there is no "murder." There is only killing or not killing. Look at the very definition of "murder:" an unlawful killing of a person. So I would correct Adam's statement to say, "killing is a Constitutional right by virtue of the fact that there is no prohibition of killing in the Constitution." An individual has a Constitutional right to kill:

• plants and animals for food
• enemy soldiers in combat
• an attacker, in self-defense or defense of others

This is why there's such an effort by those who are anti-abortion to redefine a fetus as a "person" or "human being." The law defines "murder," and only the unlawful killing of a "person" is "murder." PETA can call killing animals "murder." Antis can call abortion "murder." Some people call assisted suicide "murder." Some people call withholding treatment, nourishment, or hydration "murder." Some call a parent (e.g., a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness) declining treatment for a child "murder." Anyone can come up with a personal definition of "murder," but only the definition at law matters.

Your overall points are valid but just to clarify:

Those who are anti-abortion are not trying to "redefine" a fetus as a "person." Most of those who are anti-abortion consider an unborn child as an actual "person." It's not about legal gamesmanship, it's about the actual definition of what a "person" is.

Scientifically and religiously, a baby in a womb (aka a fetus) is a person.

[scott]

Who said the privacy of my home? I'm at Safeway. Show me where the constitution says I can't drink milk right from the carton at Safeway.

Good luck with this fool's errand. Let me know how that works out.

You're trolling now.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Your overall points are valid but just to clarify:

Those who are anti-abortion are not trying to "redefine" a fetus as a "person." Most of those who are anti-abortion consider an unborn child as an actual "person." It's not about legal gamesmanship, it's about the actual definition of what a "person" is.

Scientifically and religiously, a baby in a womb (aka a fetus) is a person.

OK, I'll change that to "redefine a fetus as a person at law." To clarify, I do not doubt the genuineness of your belief. I simply don't share it. As for science, that depends on the science, and the definition of "living." In medical science, and at law in much if not all of the U.S., a person who has become clinically brain-dead is not "living." Generally, without artificial means, that person will cease to breathe in a short period of time. The same applies to a fetus during the first and during much if not all of the second trimester. In the case of an anenchephalic fetus, for example, there is at no point really a "living person."