Show me where either of those things are in the constitution. Section number and clause please.

Amendments 1 and 9.

Where in the First Amendment does it say separation of church and state?

The Ninth Amendment is a savings clause. It says that the Constitution isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of rights. I.e., a right that can be identified somewhere else still exists, even if it's not mentioned in the constitution.

But by the same token, the constitution isn't a source of rights. You can't point to it for some right that isn't already pre-existing.

Show me a greater fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution, which is not an enumerated list of rights, but an enumerated list limiting what the gov't can do. Why is that I only see you post the most specious legal arguments, rayiner? Why is it consistently the case that you misrepresent the basic principles of the US government in the service of facially decrepit arguments?

> Show me a greater fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution, which is not an enumerated list of rights, but an enumerated list limiting what the gov't can do.

You're confusing the federal government with the state governments. State governments are not limited to enumerated powers and can do anything they want.

To overturn a duly-enacted state law, you need to assert a federal constitutional right. You're correct that the constitution "is not an enumerated list of rights." But that means it's also not a source of rights! The rights must come from somewhere else.

That's why the "emanations from penumbras" reasoning is invalid. It treats the Constitution as a source of new rights that can't be found somewhere else.

> Why is that I only see you post the most specious legal arguments, rayiner?

I think most people on here get their legal analysis from political science majors on MSNBC and WaPo.

>You're confusing the federal government with the state governments. State governments are not limited to enumerated powers and can do anything they want.

Are you illiterate, or just purposefully obtuse? I just wrote that the US government is limited to the powers defined in the US constitution. How can you take that the other way? Why are your responses always a perverse reversal of what was otherwise clearly expressed?

>But that means it's also not a source of rights! The rights must come from somewhere else.

The rights do not need to come from anywhere. They are ours inherently, which is why they are not enumerated.

>That's why the "emanations from penumbras" reasoning is invalid. It treats the Constitution as a source of new rights that can't be found somewhere else.

No, it doesn't. It points out that the limitations of the government, as written in the US Constitution, are sculpted around the innumerable inherent rights of individuals. You once again (unsurprisingly) completely flip things around to service an otherwise devoid argument.

>I think most people on here get their legal analysis from political science majors on MSNBC and WaPo.

I don't know where you get your legal analysis from, but it's shit. Probably from reason.com. Joshua Blackwell levels of bad.