[forest]

The Ninth Amendment states that: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be considered to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people. Those are our unalienable rights and liberties.

Government must honor the Constitution as a whole.

[Just another Rob]

Furthermore the constitution does not specifically mention anything about murder or battery, therefore I can say "to hell with your unconstitutional laws"... please, I don't think your understanding of the 9th is accurate.

[steplock]

Be careful - - - many on this board will think you are an extremist if you believe in the Constitution of the United States as written!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1191593/posts

[mrsmith]

So, when [the federal] government says that we cannot encrypt our messages to others on the Internet, Constitutionally we could say, "Tough cookies! I claim my Constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment of our Constitution."

He started off right: "That tells the central government that all rights belong to us, the people"
The courts have upheld the Ninth at times. For instance striking down a federal law against picketing (yeah, organized labor's rights are always protected) because it violated the Ninth.

[Gorjus]

Government must honor the Constitution as a whole.

Yep, and I've posted several times in strong support of the Constitution as written, however . . . .

One of the powers that is granted to the Federal government is:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; (Article II, Section 8)

The two examples in the essay both amount to interstate commerce. Even local internet messages often travel by way of servers in other states, and the system as a whole, including such things as internet addresses, certainly falls under the regulation of interstate commerce. And if the Federal goverment were to decide it takes ID papers to travel across State lines, that could quite arguably fall into the category of regulating interstate commerce.

Does that mean I think the 9th Amendment is meaningless? Not at all. But examples of the importance of it should focus on Federal encroachment of individual rights within a State where there is no reasonable expectation interstate commerce is involved.

[Eastbound]

Our governments (federal and state) were instituted by "We the People" to secure our rights, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence.)

The federal government was created in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.)

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. One only has to determine if state or federal government has destroyed any of our rights, both enumerated and un-enumerated.

I would place gun laws at the top of the list of things state and federal governments have used to destroy the right to life. The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the use of guns to protect one's life, so it must have considered that as one of the un-enumerated rights the people have reserved to themselves to insure the right to life -- knowing it would be impossible, impractical, cost-prohibitive, and plain stupid to provide every Citizen with an armed bodyguard.

In that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights (a continuous document) is the supreme law of the land, any Thing in state constitutions contrary to that document is repugnant and unconstitutional.

Yes, I'm referring specifically to state and federal gun laws which prevent the People from protecting their lives. If you are unable to protect your life, you do not have the RIGHT TO LIFE!

And by the way. Without the right to life, you can kiss your liberty and the pursuit of happiness goodbye.

So let me repeat:

Our governments (federal and state) were instituted by "We the People" to secure our rights, among which are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Declaration of Independence.)

Isn't it time to alter the situation, or should we just sit down and shut up and continue to support the inequities in law which favor the rich and famous by supporting their right to life over the common man who cannot afford a bodyguard -- and further, is even felonized for protecting his own life?