fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:You keep citing the 9th A., which has zero relevance here. The 9th A. says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." How is that relevant here? Speech is addressed in the 1st A. We're not dealing with something outside the Constitution; we're dealing with something specifically enumerated within the Constitution. Continually citing to a provision that has zero relevance here is mind-boggling--it just doesn't make any sense.
Show me where in this thread where I cited the 9th amendment as a direct relevance to this particular SCOTUS decision. It was always indirect in nature. My only references to the 9th were in reference to other SCOTUS decisions or that enumerated rights arguably may get special treatment and the inconsistencies it may produce in judicial decisions.
Let me ask you this question. Do you believe a non enumerated right has less legal/constitutional significance than one that was enumerated? I am not trying to be confrontational with my question. Just curious as to what your thoughts are. Like I said I have respect for the opinion of those that have devoted their life and career to the legal profession. I am sure you afford the same to some one like myself who similarly has devoted his life and career to engineering and business matters, concerning matters relevant to my profession.
I respectfully may not agree. I would not disrespect a reasoned argument by an intelligent person like yourself into subjective matters concerning my profession. I don't think that is your intention. Without knowing someone personally and quickly grasping thoughts posted on a forum shit can be unintentionally taken out of context, or its intended meaning can be confused. The worlds of science and law are quite different. But there is a lot of subjective science out there. Regardless of historical precedence. I have read some compelling arguments from intelligent individuals not directly in the field.
fan_from_texas;817350 wrote:None of the justices addressed the point you're raising. Breyer's dissent argued that the law was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest; Thomas focused on the vagueness and precedent re similar limitations. Neither the majority nor concurrence addressed the issue. The parties didn't raise your favored argument at any level.
From the minority:
The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I have stated in this thread my beliefs on original intent of the founders until so changed by the amendment process. The distension made mention of this. I have stated in this thread that constitutional rights applied to minors should be liberally interpreted. The minority agreed. In my opinion full constitutional rights are guaranteed only when the most basic constitutional right to vote is given. Prior to that full constitutional rights are given to adult parents or legal guardians to decide what a "legally" defined minor can or can't do.
Prior to the 26th amendment the states possessed the power to define what age an individual was a competent adult with the ability to exercise his God given rights on his/her own and not through parental authority. Through the amendment process the states voluntarily gave up their authority to the federal government to determine a legal right to express the most important 1st amendment right to vote. As it should be. 18 being the age of fully afforded constitutional rights. This is case in point how I believe new federal powers should be disseminated.
I would also note that that Jerry Brown attorney general of California, now governor, argued that the state of California should have the authority to regulate the purchase of material his states law for all intents and purposes deemed constitutionally defined minors not yet possessing full constitutional rights and not competent by law to purchase it on their own. Power was not given to the state to ban the material. But the full constitutional rights afforded to the parent was affirmed to the make that decision on behalf of the minor.
I realize Jerry Brown is a convenient bed fellow. He would argue for federal power over his state if it benefited his political beliefs. Unless their is some kind of aggressious violation of state authority under the federal constitution I am more then comfortable with leaving these type of issues in the hands of state governments.
A word of caution to my friends on the right enjoying a small "right leaning tilt" currently occupying the SCOTUS. A re-election of Obama and a continuing strong democrat presence in the Senate, coupled with the untimely departure of certain justices, and we would be in a whole new ball game. It could take a century to overturn judicial precedent. Their decisions affect all 300+ million of us.
It only takes 5 people. The SCOTUS is very much a political body. Don't shit yourself. The pendulum will swing the other way.
from the floor; and