Tempogain wrote:
“No, they come from our Constitution which is a secular document.”
Sorry, I’ve glanced at this thread, but the above is clearly incorrect.
All one need do is read the Ninth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So in other words, the rights explicitly guaranteed and protected by the Constitution (NOT GRANTED) are not the only rights that people possess. The government does not have legitimate authority to abrogate those rights.
Many founders opposed a bill of rights for 2 reasons.
-
The federal government was granted specific, enumerated powers. It was not authorized to go beyond its charter. It had no authority to regulate the press, for example. Thus, a bill of rights was superfluous. James Madison, felt this way as well, but relented.
-
It was impossible to make a complete list of rights, and a limited enumeration might mislead people to think that rights not listed could be infringed.
These concerns were addressed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Reading Tempogain’s later posts, it appears he is not implying that the Constitution is granting individual rights. Perhaps he means it’s a source of their legal protections.
Really not sure what the point of this thread is… haha.