I’ve looked through this thread.
As an attorney myself, I often run into lay people who confuse “what the law is” with “what the law ought to be,” and people have a tendency to conflate their view of “what the law ought to be” with whether something is a “constitutional right.” If a person feels strongly enough about the “ought to be,” they almost always to declare it to be a right enshrined by the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution, even if there is no historical or legal basis for whatever it is to be considered a Constitutional Right.
There’s no Right to Raise Chickens in the Federal Constitution. Your milage may vary in state constitutions. If you think that right should exist in the Bill of Rights, the Founders gave us an amendment process by which new Rights can be added.
As an attorney myself, I often run into lay people who confuse “what the law is” with “what the law ought to be,” and people have a tendency to conflate their view of “what the law ought to be” with whether something is a “constitutional right.” If a person feels strongly enough about the “ought to be,” they almost always to declare it to be a right enshrined by the Bill of Rights in the Federal Constitution, even if there is no historical or legal basis for whatever it is to be considered a Constitutional Right.
There’s no Right to Raise Chickens in the Federal Constitution. Your milage may vary in state constitutions. If you think that right should exist in the Bill of Rights, the Founders gave us an amendment process by which new Rights can be added.
Last edited: