Replies

The Ninth is certainly the logical follow-on to "endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in our Declaration of Independence.

I agree, but this discussion, and most of those on the 14th Amendment, ignore the importance of the 10th Amendment. There are indeed unenumerated rights, but among the enumerated rights is the right not to have the federal government control all aspects of our lives. So if there is a right to privacy (and I believe there is) that does not mean we give up the right (10th Amendment) not to have the federal government take it upon itself to control it.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is not just that it's immoral (and therefore 'bad') but that it directly violates the 10th Amendment to have the federal government exercise authority in that area. It would have been just as unConstitutional for the federal government to have prohibited abortion in all the states (no matter how 'good' that would be for our society as a whole).

Each of the Bill of Rights but one has a limitation on the ability of the federal government, not only in laws that it can make restricting the right, but also in authority to enforce the right against acts by others (since 'modified' by the 14th Amendment).

For example, the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . " As written, it was not a restriction on anyone but Congress, and by implication (since Congress has the sole authority to make law) on the federal government. But states could, in fact, restrict free exercise of religion until the 14th Amendment came along. Similarly, the 4th Amendment says that the people shall be safe in their persons and property from unreasonable search and seizure, and "no warrant shall be issued unless . ." All of the Amendments have similar limitations either on the power of the federal government directly or on its ability to enforce the underlying right.

The sole exception is the 2nd Amendment, which bluntly says, the right "shall not be infringed." That actually provides the federal government the authority to enforce the right even against state and local action (while, of course, restricting the federal government in its own actions against that right).

Bottom line, we have the "right", which is a "privilege and immunity" not to have the federal government take action on each and every right we have. 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.

Roe v. Wade is a rejection of our founding principles, the right to life itself.

The Framers and the states that submitted amendments knew that our rights were not the leftovers of powers granted to the federal government, so I don't see conflict between the 9th and 10th. As for the 14th, I have spent was too much time trying to figure out what Scotus has done to it. From what little I understand, some of the Constitution applies to the states, and some does not. An example is the 2nd, which after 160 years or since ratification of the 14th, Scotus doesn't know what we know, that self protection via arms is a Natural Right.