IMPORTANT NINTH AMENDMENT

Fiedor Report On the News #326 ^ | 11-21-04 | Doug Fiedor

[jwalsh07]

...and so on...infinitum!

Right, like the right to health care, a college education, a 3000 sq ft house and a Cadillac in every driveway. The ninth amendment was originally a check on the federal governments powers, nothing more, nothing less.

[tahiti]

"Right, like the right to health care, a college education, a 3000 sq ft house and a Cadillac in every driveway."

I am assuming your are trying to make the point that if unenumerated rights are acknowledged by the 9th amendment, that citizens and politicians will eventually "expand" those unenumerated rights to the items you listed above, at the cost to the taxpayer

I think you are confusing inalienable rights with politically granted entitlements.

We citizens have the 9th amendment right "retained by the people" to purchase health care, college education, a 3,000 sqft house and Cadillac without our government denying or disparaging that right. If it is offered by private business, for instance health care, HillaryCare cannot deny or disparage our right to forgo HillaryCare and purchase private health care.

We citizens also have the right to elect representatives who will tax and fund the purchase of those same items if we citizens wish to make them entitlements.

I would never politically support such an entitlement but Congress has the power to tax and spend to satisfy our whims.

[fire_eye]

You would probably find that even if your rights in those regards *are* protected by the 9th Amendment, it only protects you from persecution by the Feddle Gummint - it doesn't guarantee that individual States can't set about persecuting you apace.

[BlackbirdSST]

Right, like the right to health care, a college education, a 3000 sq ft house and a Cadillac in every driveway.

Right! I have a right to achieve every bit of that and more, without you or anyone in government getting in the way of it, sucks huh!?

The ninth amendment was originally a check on the federal governments powers, nothing more, nothing less.

Glad you agree! Blackbird.

[tahiti]

"You would probably find that even if your rights in those regards *are* protected by the 9th Amendment, it only protects you from persecution by the Feddle Gummint - it doesn't guarantee that individual States can't set about persecuting you apace."

Your ancestral fellow citizens right after the war of northern aggression against southern states, rendered the 10th amendment superfluous when the 14th amendment was ratified.

Amendment 14

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has been the mechanism for the judiciary to expand federal jurisdiction within the borders of sovereign states.

[jwalsh07]

I think you are confusing inalienable rights with politically granted entitlements.

No, I am not confused at all. Rights are what the SCOTUS says they are and if they decide the health care is a right by interpreting the Ninth Amendment broadly, then you get the bill for that right.

Conversely when SCOTUS decided that unborn babies do not have the unquestionable inalienable right of life, they declare it legal to kill babies on the way out.

Understand now?

[jwalsh07]

Right! I have a right to achieve every bit of that and more, without you or anyone in government getting in the way of it, sucks huh!?

No, what sucks is folks who give license to Federal Courts to to find emanations in penumbras. Like you.

Glad you agree! Blackbird.

Sadly, you don't.

[BlackbirdSST]

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

What's so hard to comprehend in this statement? Is it the same as, "...shall not be infringed." ??? Blackbird.

[jwalsh07]

What's so hard to comprehend in this statement? Is it the same as, "...shall not be infringed." ??? Blackbird.

The statement on its own is, as Bork says, an inkblot.

To understand the statement is to understand the tension between the federalists and the anti-federalists or more precisely those who would choose to vest supreme power in the federal government or those who believe that government closest to the people is the best government.

I fall in the second category. I don't want 9 supreme court justices in DC dictating to government closest to the people.

[spinestein]

"Rights are what the SCOTUS says they are and if they decide the health care is a right by interpreting the Ninth Amendment broadly, then you get the bill for that right."

The authors of the Constitution meant (even though the Supreme Court doesn't always go along with it) that what a right is defined as is something inherent to a person, as in "endowed by their Creator", and that the Bill of Rights is a set of mandatory rules for the government to obey, warning it not to infringe on these listed rights.

The 9th amendment is meant simply to declare that just because a right isn't on the list doesn't necessarily mean that we don't have it.

To start adding other entitlements to the list, as has become a common practice for about a hundred years now, is to purposely distort the difference between a right and an entitlement; a right is something inherent to you that you don't want the government to take away from you like freedom of speech, and an entitlement is something that you have provided to you by the government like free health care.

Interestingly, I recently read a copy of the Netherlands Constitution and it had less of the freedoms we normally associate with the Bill of Rights and a lot of new rights like free health care, a nice home to live in, a clean environment, a good job with decent pay and time off, etc... All paid for by the government with taxes collected from it's citizens and all of it backed by people who want to be judged on their good intentions in giving away the fruits of others labors and who can't be bothered about any unintended consequences.

[B4Ranch]

>>"Federal territorial law is evidenced by the Executive Branch's Admiralty flag (a federal flag with a gold or yellow fringe on it) flying in schools, offices and courtrooms."<<

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1279555/posts?page=1

[B4Ranch]

>>There are many reasons why I do not like the 14th Amendment. The first is that is was never ratified!<<

"I cannot believe that any court in full possession of all its faculties, would ever rule that the (14th) Amendment was properly approved and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936; Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266. (The court in this case was the Utah Supreme Court.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1279555/posts?page=1

[moonhawk]

:...Just remember, the right to "choose, read: Abortion" can also eminate from the 9th A..."

The distinction being that abortion infringes on another's right, the right to life.

No one has the right to infringe on anyone else's rights...that's where it stops.