The ninth amendment was a constraint on federal powers.
" --- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, --- ". Sound familiar? -- It proves that some powers are prohibited to states by our BORs/Constitution. Violating un/enumerated rights are so 'constrained'.
Now you want to turn it on its head and use it to assign even more power to an unelected judiciary? Thanks but no thanks.
No one is turning the 9th on its head. Our judiciary can be controlled by Constitutional means, -- but the political Rinocrat coalition prevents that from happening.
Some Rino 'conservatives' on this forum WANT State to have prohibition powers over firearms, for instance. - Do you?
Where does the Ninth Amendment state that Article 3 courts are the sole and final decision maker on rights and liberty issues? Liberty issues are the province of the people and the cities and states they occupy.
Some Rino 'conservatives' on this forum WANT State to have prohibition powers over firearms, for instance. - Do you?
My reading of the second amendment implies no such thing. Where did you get such an idea?
I think your overinterpreting the "or prohibited by it to the States" segment of this sentence. There are many passages in the Constitution which specifically prohibit certain actions by the states (i.e. coining money, entering into treaties, etc...)
"...State to have prohibition powers over firearms..."
The people retained the power to keep and bear arms. IF, and only if, the people of one or more of the several states were to specifically grant the legislature of that state the power to restrict the bearing of arms, that would be proper for that state . To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened.
The founders were aware that the needs and desires of the citizens of the states would vary from one state to the next, and specifically created a Federal framework in which the states retained a great deal of sovereignty over the day to day affairs of it's citizens.
It is probably better though that, at least in some cases, our natural rights are deemed protected by the constitution against infringment ba the states. Can you imagine the choas which would ensue if some of the states where allowed to restrict speach, or if there were no 4th or 5th Ammendment protections?
I belive this is one area where the founders, when writing the constitution, simply could not foresee the moassive changes in society. 200 years ago it would have been unthinkable to live in Washington and to "commute" to New York. Thus, restrictions in the State of New York had little impact on the citizens of the State of Maryland or Virginia. Today, people travel a great deal in thier daily lives and any restrictions in one state would have a far greater impact on the lives of the citizens of another state - without the consent of those citizens.
I don't have my copy handy, so correct me on this cite, IIRC the 14th Ammendment was the one which subordinated the states concerning the rights protected under the constitution. IF the states had already been restricted prior to this, the Ammendment [or that part of it which applies here] would have been unnecessary.