Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: exmarine; Modernman
Again, show me these rights in the Constitution - court rulings must rely on one thing and one thing only - the Constitution.

The 9th Amendment

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.

Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''

It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.

Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
Source: FindLaw

496 posted on 01/13/2004 11:38:56 AM PST by m1-lightning (Weapons of deterrence do not deter terrorists; people of deterrence do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies ]


To: m1-lightning
It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.

The Declaration of independence - the precursor to the constitution - says that life, liberty and property are GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS. The govt. has no power to take away or aware these rights. One of the stated purposes of the Constitution was to 'SECURE THESE RIGHTS'. Privacy (a right invented in Roe v. Wade) does not trump the right to life. Period. Irrefutable.

501 posted on 01/13/2004 11:44:10 AM PST by exmarine ( sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson