The US Constitution doesn’t provide a right to clean drinking water or accurate information from public officials, a divided federal appeals court ruled.
The anti-federalists, who were against the constitution and the Bill of rights, were against it in part because they said that one day people would believe that the bill of rights outlined the only rights that existed, instead of defaulting toward people’s rights over government tyranny in general.
The federalists said that was ridiculous, won the debate, and were the early leaders of America. Now, there’s an issue because the word “privacy” isn’t explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Another user pointed out the 9th amendment, which states just that. Basically, “just because we didn’t list something doesn’t mean it isn’t someone’s right”
I assume they added the 9th amendment specifically because what you are discussing
The anti-federalists, who were against the constitution and the Bill of rights, were against it in part because they said that one day people would believe that the bill of rights outlined the only rights that existed, instead of defaulting toward people’s rights over government tyranny in general.
The federalists said that was ridiculous, won the debate, and were the early leaders of America. Now, there’s an issue because the word “privacy” isn’t explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Another user pointed out the 9th amendment, which states just that. Basically, “just because we didn’t list something doesn’t mean it isn’t someone’s right”
I assume they added the 9th amendment specifically because what you are discussing
The ninth was not well written enough to be proof against legalistic oblivion. The anti-feds were basically right