Here's a good place to start: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html
More on this next week. . . . :-)
Also, I notice you did not even mention the Tenth Amendment that was designed to protect State's Rights.
The Supreme Court has never ruled counter to Judge Bork's interpretation of the Ninth.
I know you living constitutionalists hate it, but fantasizing or misquoting judge Bork won't change it.
Ping me, nothing cracks me up more than libertarian living constitutionalists.
They're like pro-abortion fetuses.
Say, you might ponder why the Supremes didn't finally grab their chance to use the Ninth that way in that Texas sodomy case- instead choosing to redefine 'liberty' (equally bizarre).
Any one could see that it would be idiotic to claim the Ninth gives them the power to enumerate rights, but any one can also see they were given no power to redefine words in the Constitution either. It's a puzzler.
I heard him say that. What can I say? Bork Borked himself!
This made no sense to me, so I made a few searches on Google. I could not find a transcript of the hearings, but I did see your alleged quote phrased in different ways.
Since you fail to provide a context for this alleged quote, you haven't built any case to support your conclusion that "Bork Borked himself." I don't take your article seriously at all.
On the other hand, mrsmith provided a context in which Judge Bork said something very different than what you say he said. Mrsmith's comments are far more plausible, because they are congruent with the Judge's legal philosophy of "original intent."
Furthermore, I don't think that Judge Bork first made national news during his Senate hearings, since he was Solicitor General in the Nixon administration:
In 1973, as Solicitor General -- the lawyer charged with representing the United States in cases that came before the Supreme Court -- he was called upon by President Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, had previously refused to carry out Nixon's orders, but Bork did the deed.
Source: http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm
Additionally:
Nixon Forces Firing of Cox; Richardson, Ruckelshaus Quit President Abolishes Prosecutor's Office; FBI Seals Records
By Carroll Kilpatrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 21, 1973; Page A01
In the most traumatic government upheaval of the Watergate crisis, President Nixon yesterday discharged Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and accepted the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus.
The President also abolished the office of the special prosecutor and turned over to the Justice Department the entire responsibility for further investigation and prosecution of suspects and defendants in Watergate and related cases.
Shortly after the White House announcement, FBI agents sealed off the offices of Richardson and Ruckelshaus in the Justice Department and at Cox's headquarters in an office building on K Street NW.
An FBI spokesman said the agents moved in "at the request of the White House."
Agents told staff members in Cox's office they would be allowed to take out only personal papers. A Justice Department official said the FBI agents and building guards at Richardson's and Ruckelshaus' offices were there "to be sure that nothing was taken out." Richardson resigned when Mr. Nixon instructed him to fire Cox and Richardson refused. When the President then asked Ruckelshaus to dismiss Cox, he refused, White House spokesman Ronald L. Ziegler said, and he was fired. Ruckelshaus said he resigned.
Finally, the President turned to Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, who by law becomes acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general are absent, and he carried out the President's order to fire Cox. The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned. [emphasis mine]
*snip*
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm
I daresay that the chances are good to excellent that if Bork was in the Washington Post, he was in the MSM all over the country. My point being that if you are inaccurate in this instance, how do I know to trust you for the rest? (Which I don't.)