Are constitutionally protected rights subject to change?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Pick one

Any thoughts?

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A vote can define, redefine or alter a right.
	0 (0%)
	A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.
	8 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NYC_SKP]

1. Absolutely, yes.

Without saying they should or shouldn't be.

[gejohnston]

2. some things should not be just majority vote

that includes amending state constitutions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Aye.

That gets my vote.

(The search engine is our friend.)

[Glaug-Eldare]

3. I'm loath to choose either option.

Constitutional rights are always being defined and nuanced through lawsuits and legislation which expand and contract their scope. The existence of the right is not negotiable, but the limits are only determined through case law. In my opinion, that case law should not be influenced by popular opinion or interest groups -- it should be a strict determination of historical context and objective language. The courts are not empowered to legislate -- they must constrain themselves to determining the intent and spirit of laws, as enacted by the lawmakers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. From time to time...

...the courts interpret the application of rights to everyday situations. Sometimes the courts will rule on a constitutional challenge to existing law.

IMHO, basic rights exist apart from the constitution or law. Some rights have been codified in the constitution and, as it says in the Bill of Rights, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." For example, there is for sure a right to life. No mention of it is made in the constitution but it exists.

DC had a law that was challenged in court by Dick Heller, et al. The outcome of that challenge affirms the underlying right and disparages the challenged law. Rights are not subject to a vote. Pure democracy, as the saying goes, is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Neither case law nor statute properly and completely addressed the issues of surrogacy contracts but Chief Justice Robert Wilentz's 1988 opinion of surrogacy contracts as against public policy, recognized the rights of mothers.

In short, rights exist apart from writings. Rights (IMHO) are attributes of humans. For me, passing a law that says we don't have a right to arms (weapons) is much the same as saying we don't have arms (upper torso appendages).