There were 10 original Amendments that passed muster. Compartmentalized, separated, divided? Why not just one then, pally boy?
I was speaking in the context of the statement I had quoted:
I know EXACTLY what Roe v Wade was based upon. And it wasn’t the same as the LGBTQ issues are
You (like many on the left) force rights into little boxes that can be categorized and labeled. Sure, the particular activity under inspection in
Roe and
Lawrence v Texas isn't the same
but the liberty interest is and it all is traced back to
Griswold and to Harlan's dissent in
Poe v Ullman.
"[The] specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). -- Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
You are rejecting that doctrine that found the right to privacy in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You denounce the principle that a huge breadth of rights exist that are not listed. You deny the 9th Amendment . . .
And because you see nothing wrong with cutting the right to arms out, and defining it differently, you are denying that the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights are just a small section in a "rational continuum"; an unbreakable chain of liberty made up of many links that all are important and vital.
Justice O'Connor, quoted the relevant part of Harlan's dissent in the opinion of the Court in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey:
"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Some questions for you to answer:
How does your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment fit into the right to keep and bear arms being a link in the much larger "rational continuum" of individual liberty protected from federal (and state) injury?
Can (or should) a right that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights be more respected, more vital and more secure than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?
Extinguish? Is reading comprehension a problem for you, too?
LOL.
My point is that since you dissect the right to arms out of "the rational continuum of [individual] liberty" you are denying the validity of the doctrine by which the right to privacy was found. Your hostility for the the 2nd Amendment and gun rights in general, is actually calling into question the legitimacy of securing the right of privacy. If you are correct about the right to arms, then
Griswold and
Roe and
PP v Casey and
Lawrence v. Texas and
Obergefell v. Hodges must be wrong . . .
Anti-gunners have pulled the thread which will undo the penumbral rights theory, extinguishing the right to abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights.
All the big liberal cities have regulated the 2nd amendment to hell and back....and the result? They have become the murder capitals of the world.
