Re: constitutional rights

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

John,
Thanks for quoting relevant passages!  I don't have a copy handy,

Sorry for the fact that this is off topic; although peripherally related to
a Physics professor at USF.  But its interesting and John essentially always
has good stuff to say about the topics he cares to comment on.

> > there exists a great deal of considered legal opinion that
> maintains there
> > is no right to privacy within the US constitution (this is a
> debated point).
>
> Strictly speaking yes, such opinions abound.  On the other
> hand, in *my*
> opinion:

Its not just that opinions abound (mine is an example inconsidered ,i.e.
uneducated)of opinion); but a body of considered legal opinion exists (to
which I personally object, I might add)

> * The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
> houses, papers,
> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated...

interpreting this statement is precisely why I mentioned that this
considered legal opinion is debated by other considered legal opinion.
Other interesting questions abound regarding "the right to privacy"; e.g.to
what extent is car like a house or can be viewed as part of an extension of
your person . . . etc

> * The powers not delegated to the United States by the
> Constitution, nor
> prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or
> to the people.

Which is why a state can practice age descrimination in its employment
practices, as that right is reserved to the state. Which is how I understand
the case was argued by the state in question (I've forgotten which one) in
last years supreme court docket. (argued successfully, I might add!).

I note, that from the way the case was reported in the news; I understood
that private employers may not practice age descrimination (except in
certain specific situations, e.g. airline pilots) as that right to
descriminate is not reserved to the people, as it is prohibited by
non-constitutional federal statute.

> * The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>
> But that's just my opinion.....

This clause allows states to grant rights that are not conferred in the
federal constitution; and are of course, only applicable in those states.

Furthermore, that clause does not demonstrate the existence of an
un-enumerated right.

Hence the supreme court gets interesting cases, because a right may be said
to be implicit in the constitution without being specifically enumerated . .
. debate occurs . . . and we need a supreme court to make the legal
decisions on such matters.

Hence my comment about the common perception of the existence of various
rights; many so-called rights are not specifically enumerated and therefore
are quite open to question as to the nature of their existence (in the
context of US Constitutional law, of course).

Leigh, if you've read this far, I hope you'll still participate on the list
after "retirement"; see what interesting discussions you can spark!!  I hope
enjoy thoroughly your new endeavors!!

Joel Rauber