(July 21, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Cato Wrote:(July 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”
This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.
As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.
Some people really need to read the 9th Amendment. And then read it again. And again. Until it sinks in. According to the Constitution, people have rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. So, when someone makes a judgement based on that, they are not necessarily just making things up; it is part of the Constitution (as amended) that people have rights that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
