[electrondood]

Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. Now, they completely invent criminal immunity out of thin air (which btw was never necessary in the last 250 years until we had a criminal president), when the intent of the drafters to never elevate any person above the law was crystal clear.

The Roberts court is just arbitrarily choosing whatever justification they happen to like for any given case to push an extremist agenda.

[8note]

It would have been easy to bring Obama up on murder charges of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, but was not, due to this same presumed immunity

[tines]

> Not only that, but this same court removed the constitutional right to an abortion because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution.

I'm as against this court as the next guy, but don't constitutional rights need to be, you know, in the constitution?

[i-am-fnord]

No, because rights are not granted by the constitution, rights are self-evident and natural, and people retain them without them being explicitly enumerated.

The constitution merely enumerates certain rights where the founders wanted to be extra clear that those things were rights, but it is not a limiting document.

The 9th amendment states this explicitly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

[tines]

Gotcha. So how do we know what rights we have for sure?

[brewdad]

Some rights, such as bodily autonomy, are so self-evident the Founders didn’t feel the need to enumerate them.

[bane]

No, the 9th recognizes that the Constitution doesn't capture every possible right in its enumeration.