Replies

As a literalist, what then is the meaning of the Ninth Amendment?

Before I get to the 9th Amendment specifically, your question deserves a bit of context. As I indicated in my previous post, if there are multiple 'rules' that apply to a situation, then the correct solution is one that meets all the rules, not just selected ones that justify what you want. As a result, the 9th Amendment must be understood in the context of the other Amendments. To that end, I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as a pair of rules that must be addressed together.

So, the 9th says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the 10th says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think the literal interpretation of those says, There are rights for 'the people' which are not enumerated, and the power to exercise and enforce those rights - since it is not explicitly delegated to the United States (Federal Government) nor prohibited to the States - is reserved to the States or to the people.

The short form of that is, "Any right not explicitly addressed in the Constitution is none of the federal government's business."

I do see room for interpretation in the Constitution, but at the level of an honest interpretation of the words as literally as practical. The "press" as it was recognized at the time of ratification did not include electronic media, but I am very comfortable with the idea that the freedom of the "press" outlined in the 1st Amendment applies to electronic media. Similarly, there is an implied right to vote when qualifications for voting are outlined.

Underlying my interpretation is the principle that the most important words in the Constitution are "We, the People." It doesn't start as "We, the Lawyers and Judges," or "We, the landed gentry of Virginia." It is our contract with ourselves, to be administered by the federal government. Each citizen has a "right," a "privilege and immunity" to believe that if he reads that contract, he can expect it to be applied as the written words would be understood in simple English by the average literate citizen. There is no room for judge-made law to supersede the plain language of the Constitution, especially through 'shadows' and 'penumbra'.

The key to the 9th is to establish that there are things that are outside the scope of the Constitution, and the key to the 10th is to say that anything not explicitly in the Constitution is none of the federal government's business.

The following are portions of your comments to this thread.

“I agree, but this discussion, and most of those on the 14th Amendment, ignore the importance of the 10th Amendment.”

“So if there is a right to privacy (and I believe there is) that does not mean we give up the right (10th Amendment)”

“Roe v. Wade is not just that it's immoral (and therefore 'bad') but that it directly violates the 10th Amendment”

“So while I agree that the 9th Amendment provides the room for additional rights than those enumerated, it does not in itself negate an enumerated right - including the enumerated right in the 10th Amendment. “

“Bork, at his confirmation hearings, said he thought the 14th Amendment made the 10th Amendment moot.”

“I see the 9th and 10th Amendments as a pair of rules that must be addressed together.”

“And the 10th says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

“the key to the 10th is to say that anything not explicitly in the Constitution is none of the federal government's business.”

Okay, you are obviously a thoughtful person. I assure you that the Ninth is independent of the Tenth and going on a length about the 10th, 14th and 17th is irrelevant to the Ninth. At the same time you apparently do not believe what I have written regarding the Natural Law basis of our founding, Constitution and the Ninth. They are impossible to understand without familiarity with Natural Law, derived from the law of our Creator.

I bring this up because it was only after reading Levin’s Liberty & Tyranny that I began a study of the philosophical basis of our founding. I avoided internet sites.

Among the books I found informative were, “The Rights Retained by the People,” Edited by Randy Barnett, Cato Institute 1989.

“Written on the Heart,” The Case for Natural Law, by J. Budziszewski, InterVarsity Press, 1997.