Same as MySpace
I sit here once again completely bored and when I get this way I usually start browsing the internet for updates on a few sites I frequent (i.e WM3.org, Wikipedia, and various musical artists). Somehow along the way I got distracted and wanted to read the Constitution, so I googled it. Paying particular attention to the phrasing of the ninth amendment and the powerful phrasing that it entails.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Simply put this does not limit ones rights to what is specifically stated in the constitution. This got me thinking about a case that this amendment was relied on heavily, Roe vs. Wade, so it was off to google again. For those who don't know this was a pivotal case for a woman's right to choose on the issue of abortion making it unconstitutional for a state to make it a crime. After reading some of the legal interpretation and arguments on both sides my brain started thinking and so it was off to another subject, Gay Marriage.
In order to make a decision on this subject let us work within the confines the constitution provides for us. First and foremost is the 4th amendment that guarantees the right to privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
I can think of nothing more private then the affirmation of vows between two citizens in the presence of their families and loved ones. Does an occasion get more intimate and private then that? By going against this argument that would mean that all weddings are to be considered a public display negating the need to present an invitation to gain entrance to the event. For the sake of argument let us throw this amendment out for a moment and move on to the next one.
In the spirit of moving on let us take a more direct look at specific verbage laid out for us in amendment number 14:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One might argue that Amendment 4 is more specifically calling out an active search for an open investigation despite the many other interpretations in various other cases (i.e. Roe v. Wade. Here we see a specific mention to "All persons born or naturalized" are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. It then later states "nor deny ANY person within its jusisdiction the equal protection of the law". That last line is a very powerful statement as it directly speaks that all laws contained in this document must apply equally to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". Does it get any more direct then that? This amendment makes it impossible for Congress or any Government body to incorporate a law that would not be applicable equally to all citizens in the United States. This quite possibly is one of the most important amendments in our Constitution.
If we must further argue on this subject which by this time is on the verge of putting the Constitution in a paper shredder, then I offer you this final argument. This one will rely on Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Shortly, this amendment grants unspoken rights to both the Government and the People of the United States. We will start where most people start on this argument when 9 is mentioned. Doesn't this allow the Government to impose a law that the People are in favor of? Yes it does and IF Amendment 14 didn't force laws to apply to all citizens equally then Congress or the President for that matter could impose a law making marriage a union between a Man and a Woman. Getting back to 9 here, I believe that this Amendment was put here for this exact reason. When the Union was formed our fore father realized that there would come a time in the future that an issue would arise that they currently weren't able to fathom (i.e. Gay Marriage). The constitution does not specifically prohibit Gays from get married nor does it specifically allow it, but when you use 9 with 14 the only conclusion is to allow the laws to apply equally to all citizens of the United States. We have the laws and guidelines right in front of us these interpretations are taken directly from the context of the document that founds the structure of free thinking this country was based on. We owe to our fore fathers to ensure the equality of our legal system is kept sound. After all isn't justice supposed to be blind.
I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am in no way shape or form a lawyer, and am posting this because I am simply voicing my opinion. The quotations however are directly from the Constitution and The Bill of Rights as they were written by the founding father themselves. Before you start quoting the religious aspects or personal feelings on this matter remember that those have no place in our legal system, and that the issue we are dealing with is if we should really allow the law to infiltrate the way two citizens spend their lives together.
-Joe-
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Simply put this does not limit ones rights to what is specifically stated in the constitution. This got me thinking about a case that this amendment was relied on heavily, Roe vs. Wade, so it was off to google again. For those who don't know this was a pivotal case for a woman's right to choose on the issue of abortion making it unconstitutional for a state to make it a crime. After reading some of the legal interpretation and arguments on both sides my brain started thinking and so it was off to another subject, Gay Marriage.
In order to make a decision on this subject let us work within the confines the constitution provides for us. First and foremost is the 4th amendment that guarantees the right to privacy:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
I can think of nothing more private then the affirmation of vows between two citizens in the presence of their families and loved ones. Does an occasion get more intimate and private then that? By going against this argument that would mean that all weddings are to be considered a public display negating the need to present an invitation to gain entrance to the event. For the sake of argument let us throw this amendment out for a moment and move on to the next one.
In the spirit of moving on let us take a more direct look at specific verbage laid out for us in amendment number 14:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One might argue that Amendment 4 is more specifically calling out an active search for an open investigation despite the many other interpretations in various other cases (i.e. Roe v. Wade. Here we see a specific mention to "All persons born or naturalized" are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. It then later states "nor deny ANY person within its jusisdiction the equal protection of the law". That last line is a very powerful statement as it directly speaks that all laws contained in this document must apply equally to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". Does it get any more direct then that? This amendment makes it impossible for Congress or any Government body to incorporate a law that would not be applicable equally to all citizens in the United States. This quite possibly is one of the most important amendments in our Constitution.
If we must further argue on this subject which by this time is on the verge of putting the Constitution in a paper shredder, then I offer you this final argument. This one will rely on Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Shortly, this amendment grants unspoken rights to both the Government and the People of the United States. We will start where most people start on this argument when 9 is mentioned. Doesn't this allow the Government to impose a law that the People are in favor of? Yes it does and IF Amendment 14 didn't force laws to apply to all citizens equally then Congress or the President for that matter could impose a law making marriage a union between a Man and a Woman. Getting back to 9 here, I believe that this Amendment was put here for this exact reason. When the Union was formed our fore father realized that there would come a time in the future that an issue would arise that they currently weren't able to fathom (i.e. Gay Marriage). The constitution does not specifically prohibit Gays from get married nor does it specifically allow it, but when you use 9 with 14 the only conclusion is to allow the laws to apply equally to all citizens of the United States. We have the laws and guidelines right in front of us these interpretations are taken directly from the context of the document that founds the structure of free thinking this country was based on. We owe to our fore fathers to ensure the equality of our legal system is kept sound. After all isn't justice supposed to be blind.
I would like to make it abundantly clear that I am in no way shape or form a lawyer, and am posting this because I am simply voicing my opinion. The quotations however are directly from the Constitution and The Bill of Rights as they were written by the founding father themselves. Before you start quoting the religious aspects or personal feelings on this matter remember that those have no place in our legal system, and that the issue we are dealing with is if we should really allow the law to infiltrate the way two citizens spend their lives together.
-Joe-