[quote=Faithful1

The left-winger wants to take away the inherent right of self-defense from a citizen to who faces armed attackers. It's simply unconscionable. [/quote]

This is the kind of statement that devoids you of credibility. I am a left winger and am in favor of a citizen's right to self defense from armed attackers. I am not in favor of schizophrenics or drug addicts or other mentally disturned people carrying firearms, I am not in favor of the "right" to carry firearms into bars or moie theaters, and I most certainly not in favor of the "right" for a vigilante to arm himself, follow a kid he profiles all around a neighborhood, be told by the cops to stand down, who then gets out of his car and shoots the kid to death get away with it.


Your legal analysis, the logical conclusion is that Marbury v. Madison, which gave the Supreme Court the powers it has was a bad case, and that it opened the floodgates to everything that has come forward since.

As for Roe, it was the right decision for the wrong reasons. The Court learned its lesson in the recent Gay marriage decision, which has opened the door to Gay marriage, but not proclaimed it the law of the land as they did in Roe. They could have limited Roe to the facts at bar and ruled favorably in a narrower manner. Incidentally Roe was technically moot by the time it got to the court, but it was heard under the doctrine (also not found in the constitution) of "capable of repitition yet evading review.

There are most certainaly unenumerated rights, and some are ancient ones. It is the law of this country that anything not covered by the constitution statutes or U.S. Common law is still governed by the laws of pre 1776 England. A good example is Riparian rights, which goes back forever. Statutes have changed it a great deal, but it is never mentioned in the constitution, but the rights and liabilities came from England to the US courts and legislatures.