What makes you think the 9th amendment can't be enforced? It is enforced (or at least used to be enforced) all the time by the courts, whenever some non-enumerated right is infringed upon by the government and the courts tell the government to stop doing whatever it is doing.
Also, I see nothing in the 9th about rights "not" enumerated
And that is why it is clear you have a reading comprehension problem. That's what "others" means in the context of "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
what the end of the clause really does say is "others retained by the people" using the past tense "retained", not soon to be retained or perhaps someday when we find some new rights......
That's because the founders aren't talking about "new" rights; just rights that were there all along. The authors wanted to make it perfectly clear that, just because a right was not listed, doesn't mean that the right does not exist or that the government can infringe upon that right.
are you sure you are not confusing the 9th with the 10th?
This is probably the basis of your confusion. You don't understand the difference between "rights" and "powers". The 10th amendment deals with powers, not rights like the 9th amendment.
This article, and subsequent posts are about, I believe, a federal judge overstepping in reguards to the Second Ammendment. I concur. And this is my point.........I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives federal judges the right to decide law, (or, in other words, what a judge thinks the law should be).....I firmly believe that that right is specifically and clearly placed in the hands of Congress and the people.
When the constitution was being formed, there was plenty of conflict....some for slavery, some against....some for more states rights, some not....some for a stronger federal court, and those against.....etc., etc., etc. It got so bad, that Ben Franklin suggested that prayers should be offered regularly, and if I understand correctly, they were.
Now, Madison had his views, and many excellant ones, about what the constitution really meant before and after they finished writing it in September of 1787. And there were those who opposed Madison's views, with strong argument........and so on with other framers and other issues......there was much debate about areas that would eventually become the 9th Ammendment, also. George Mason walked out and didn't return.
We needed the constitution finished, it had to be finished. Notwithstanding slavery and individual rights, and a host of other issues, it was finished, (a work, I believe, that is the greatest government document ever written by the hands of men), and later ratified, leaving it up to future congresses to work out the details, the laws, the rights and powers. (I am sure, Technogeeb, that you have a very good knowledge of the history of the constitution, but there are some who read these posts that do not.)
Let me put it this way, if you bought a new car, and signed a contract of sale......it is not what the salesman told you as to what the contract really means that counts, not what the clerk told you that the contract says, not even what the owner of the dealership tells you about what the contract really means, (and, they could all be right or wrong in their advice)........very plainly, it is the very words in the contract, (the "law"), that really matters if you you find yourself in financial or legal difficulties.
I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal courts the right to create laws....also, I have yet to find anything that leads me to believe that the federal courts are supposed to be a check on the congress. The presidental veto, the voices of the people, and their votes are a check on the congress. In addition, the two house check each other, and even check themselves.
I firmly believe that it is the job of a congress, elected by the people, under a guaranteed republican form of government, to "make all laws". Therefore, I believe that it is the job of a congress to decide what the laws are in respect to the 9th, not some recent graduate of law school, through the supreme he or she happens to be "clerking" for. Now the key word in the 9th, I believe, is the word "retained". Retained not only means "in reserve", but also things "already listed". It is up to the congress to make the laws in respect to this ammendment, the Ninth Ammendment.
We have seen from years past, what the federal courts have done to darn near gut the constitution. Today, it only takes 5 unelected judges, contrary to a republican form of government, to, at times, actually "make the laws of this land". Even lower courts have been getting into the action, as this article on the Second Ammendment points out.
Marbury vs Madison was terribly flawed, and the supremes have been wrong about a host of other issues and laws....slavery....abortion, sodomy....education....free speech, and yes.....the Second Ammendment.
More guns mean less crime.
More conservatives make a better congress.
A better congress makes for a better America, except for those who want to break laws, spread disease, ruin the lives of children, and overthrow this government.....have I left anybody out?