General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Judge orders father of 9 to stop having children until he can provide for them [View all]dballance
(5,756 posts)One could infer it implies unlimited rights for everyone. I doubt that's what the founders meant. I'm pretty sure what they meant was just because they didn't enumerate something as a right in the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't mean people don't have that right. Like the right to get married for instance. Not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights but pretty commonly accepted as a right.
There is also the fact that the constitution does give the federal government the power to enact laws. State constitutions also empower their legislators to enact laws. There are the executive and the judicial branches to overrule legislators when they cross the line.
If this guy has had so many children and cannot care for them then I think it's fine to prohibit him from fathering more children. Why exactly should the tax payers have to support his offspring when it truly was a choice on his part to impregnate six different women?
I doubt you'd have a problem with the court ruling a landlord cannot buy anymore properties until and unless they brought all of their currently-owned properties out of slum conditions and provided tenants with running water and heat. So how would it be different or wrong for this guy to be expected to be responsible for the human lives he already created or stop creating them?