🚀 go-pugleaf

> in article <3313@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, cute@sphinx.uchicago.edu (John Robert Cavallino) says:
> > In article <162@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes:
> >>In article <6780@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
> >>>demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do
> >>>can be turned into a right:
> >>
> >>A 'right' is only a 'right' if a society deems it to be so. It is TRUE!
> > Whats-his-name (you know, the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence)
> > must have been confused when he talked about "inalienable rights" and said that
> > it was "self-evident" that they existed.  Glad we have you to clear that up for
> > us.
> 
> Excuse me? It seems some people have gotten themselves deluded into believing
> that anything they do IS a right.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is not a law. Its value is purely historical.
> It has no relevance to our current form of government, which originated in the
> Constitution over 10 years later.
> 
> Legally, the only "rights" guaranteed you are those in the Constitution and in
> the various laws which have been passed by Congress over the years (e.g., the
> Voting Rights Act, etc.). What society thinks is irrelevant, except insofar as
> it is reflected in legislative action.
> 
> Eric Lee Green  elg@usl.CSNET     Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb
> {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg              detonated by the mention of any
> Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191              subject, resulting in an explosion
> Lafayette, LA 70509                    of at least 5,000 words.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  

Amendment X

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.
 
Also, see Hamilton's writings in defense of the ratification of the
Constitution, where he argues, in essence, that just because a right is
not explicitly declared, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  He points to
New York's state constitution which contained no guarantee of freedom of
the press, but no one doubted that such a right existed.

This is a significant issue -- as the Bork confirmation hearings showed.
(And by most any rational definition, Bork qualifies as a supporter of
unlimited, or nearly unlimited democracy -- which is why he pisses off
the left -- who also claim to be for unlimited democracy, but get angry
when it actually happens, because they support unlimited democracy only
as a tool for oppressing anyone who doesn't think "progressively" enough).
That our government has largely ignored the IX and X over most of its
history doesn't mean that our rights are only the ones declared.

Clayton E. Cramer