I have been watching the news on the Supreme Court and something has me confused. I noticed that they define a Judge as an activist if they claim a right exists that is not actually enumerated in the Constitution. Most equate that position with being liberal.
Trouble is that is exactly what I believe the Constitution meant. If the power or right was never granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution then it is indeed an individual right. If those individuals then choose to grant that power or right to their individual State they can.
Am I therefore a liberal if I believe that a person has a right to an abortion exactly because its not in the Constitution?
Am I a liberal because I believe that the right to privacy is mine because it was never given up to the Federal Government?
Somewhere people have come up with the idea that if its not in the Constitution then is is not a right. I believe this to be backwards. Some say "Show me where in the Constitution you get the right....." I have that Right exactly because its not in the Constitution.
No Judge can give me a Right. No Judge can make up an individual right.
I was born with the full right to do as I please. We created the Constitution to rein in some of the more undesirable rights, but the vast majority were left outside the power of the Feds.