of fox & friends weekend, starting with this. trump taking his message into deep blue cities where few republican candidates ever venture. but it s a tale of two campaigns because while trump in detroit biden heads to a l.a. fundraiser with so-called a-list celebrit ies. rachel: plus kate middleton back in the spotty light. looking live alt london where the trooping the color is under way, and kate middleton is making her first public appearance since announcing her cancer diagnosis in march. todd: and from one sports great to another. we ll tell you what advice serena williams is offer ing to caitlyn clark as the woman s basketball star is facing pressure. the second hour of fox & friends weekend starts right now. pete: todd welcome to the game, called the skyline game. can you name the american city, charlotte, am i right? i m going to go with it s not cleveland. no. i think there s older buildings. todd: do we have an answer? atlanta. i was only a couple hundred miles
standard contracts, buried way down in the fine print, that folks often don t read, and even if they do read it they ll never get through the phone tree to find someone to complain about it and strike it out of the contract, it s a take it or leave it adhesion proposition. they build into that that you ve given up your right to a jury. your seventh amendment right to a civil jury is not actually in the bill of rights. i cannot think of another right of the court pays less attention to, or throws more readily under the bus if you read the mandatory arbitration cases there is barely a mention of the seventh amendment. it seems to me that it flies in the face of the purpose of the jury to allow the citizens of the greatest power and wealth for today s corporate citizens,
that there are limitations on regulation, even if people are regulating pursuant to their s sincerely held religious belief. do you agree that a marriage is not mentioned in the constitution? it is not mentioned, no. and religious freedom is mentioned in the first amendment explicitly, correct? it is. do you share my concern that when the court takes on the role of identifying in on enumerated right, in other words it is not mentioned in the constitution, and creates a new right, declaring that anything conflicting with that is unconstitutional, that that creates circumstance for those who may hold to traditional beliefs, like something as important as marriage, that they
applaud, but why isn t substantive due process just another way for justices to hide their policymaking under the guise further constitution? welcome of the justices have interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to include a substantive provision that the right to due process, they have interpreted that to mean not just procedural right relative to government action, but also the protection of certain personal rights related to intimacy and autonomy, and it includes things like the right to rear one s children. i believe the right to travel, the right to marriage,
are unelected, who have lifetime tenure, whose salary cannot be reduced while they serve in office, they decide five of them decide this is the way the world should be. what other unenumerated rights do you believe exist? how could we possibly anticipate what those might be? for example, the ninth amendment says the enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people, which suggests to me that there are other unidentified rights out there. and somehow someday some court is going to tell us that we ve identified and unenumerated right and we are going to reject their right of the american people to determine what the policy out the b.s. regards to