Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
I don't know what "reserved to" means but "retained by" means the people have them and can see and say what they have. The people are the ones who say what "unenumerated" rights they have.
Some people think the Ninth is an expansion or the federal powers in the 14th Amendment. Just the opposite of what was intended.
The Ninth says the federal courts must heed the people.
James Madison: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [Ninth Amendment].''
No, I don't think so. His analysis of the Constitution was pretty good, but his suggestion of a national referendum is somewhat off the wall.
It would have no legal effect and the only thing it might do is generate some interest in the Constitution and the Court's role in construing it.
But it wouldn't change a thing regardless of the outcome.
You could have all the 'national referendums' in the world and it wouldn't matter a whit, becuase that's not one of the mechanisms for amending the Constitution. (Thank God.)
I don't know about you, but to have a Federal Judge call for a 'national referendum' to change the Founding Document comes pretty close to an impeachable offense to me. It's certainly not 'good behavior' in my book.
L
Well reasoned, well said.
He clearly does know the process since he mentioned it in the piece.
His complaint is that the Supreme Court has been amending the Constitution, which it is not entitled to do, and he would like the public to remind them of that fact. I don't think it is any deeper than that.
No state law can contradict the Ninth Amendment- they can only contradict the 14th (and some other parts) of the constitution.
What immunities and privileges are in the 14th is not expanded by the Ninth.
Just the opposite is true.
The Ninth actually says that the "immunities and privileges" enumerated in the 14th Amendment "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". It's a restriction on the federal courts- not a license.
"Privacy" is protected by several parts of the federal and state constitutions. How depends on the specifics of a case.
The concept of a general "right to privacy" isn't at all useful IMHO.
Go Bears...
L
I agree. Their malevolent intentions have been lost in those benevolent labels. Many of these labels were self assumed to aid in accomplishing their perfidious agenda.
I think we're in agreement. Another of our qualified rights has to do with the requirement that we quarter soldiers in our private houses. Anytime a state of war exists we can be required to do so.
As for the "founders' intent", I think it is well to remember that the Federalists did not see any requirement for a Bill of Rights. Its adoption was the price for getting several of the States to adopt the Constitution with its articles of "permanent union" over the Articles of Confederation. The Federalists thought that anything that needed protecting could be protected by the Congress (shudder! --- but then the early members of Congress tended to be a more rational lot than we see today).
Does anyone have a short history of abortion? When and where they began? Something along those lines. Just interested.
Unfortunately, we the people neglected that duty for several decades and elected the wrong people. And now we have several decades of bad Supreme Court decisions that will take another generation or two to roll back.
I like the current trend, but it's going to require a sustained effort to shift the direction of our ship of state. In the end, the American people will have the kind of government they desire whatever that might be.
The judge fails to take into account that we do have what amounts to a "national referendum" every four years in our presidential elections. We may not get what we want or need in these elections, but their history tends to suggest that national referendums regarding any issue of national law or policy would be just as mixed.
So, this A$$ contends that any right not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the constitution is a figment of the imagination?
Under his reasoning the Ninth amendment has no meaning, and is null and void.
[B]Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/B]
I would say yes, on the condition that you do so only at home, and do not venture into public area's until all effects have completely worn off.
It's not one created by the US Constitution.
What kind of a judge wants to amend the Constitution via the mob. Madison makes it pretty clear in Federalist 10 that pure democracy is a tyrannical form of government and is dangerous to liberty. A short excerpt of Federalist 10 says:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Anyone else interested in hearing about why the founding fathers didn't use national referendums can read more of this federalist paper on the following link.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
This is worth quoting again. I'm often disturbed by 'conservatives' who rail against a 'right to privacy' because it wasn't enumerated specifically in the Constitution. I believe that the main reason for their objection is that it has been used to support the legal status of abortion. If you take abortion out of the equation, I would imagine their objections would be lessened somewhat.
When the Constitution was being debated amongst the states, one of the larger points of contention was whether or not a bill of rights would be included in the document. The federalists, as shown in the Federalist Papers were opposed to the inclusion of the 'bill of rights' because they thought that by enumerating some rights specifically in the Constitution, that it could, and would be argued that other pre-existing rights enshrined in the Common Law would be denied to even exist because they hadn't been enumerated.
The anti-federalists, as documented in the Letters from a Federal Farmer, felt that if they weren't included the Constitution, FedGov would have no real limits to its power.
The Federalists lost the argument, and it is lucky for us IMO, as I shudder to think how far FedGov would have gone towards being a more effective police state without them. At the same time, it has been shown that the Federalists were right about what has happened in relation to those things enumerated, and those that were not.
This is especially true as it concerns the topic at hand. Given the other provisions found in the 'bill of rights', specifically the verbiage of the 4th amendment, I find it hard to believe that people can believe that Americans don't have right to privacy. I think another way of describing this 'right' is to call it a right to be left the hell alone. As long as we're living peacably, and not harming others, the government should just Keep Out. Unfortunately, there are too damned many people who think that it is government's job to play nanny to us all.
Clearly, "The right of Privacy" is just misdirection from the real intentions and agenda of the leftist that promoted "Roe v. Wade". "Privacy" is the smokescreen for those activist judges that wish to remake society along leftist lines, by fiat. Even if a right to "Privacy", how can it trump the civil rights of those who are unborn, those without redress or counsel?
Privacy is meant to be more than a semi-shadow or penumbra, it is meant to be an opaque, impenetrable screen that hides real actions and intentions. We are not only not allowed to act in interference of the right in regards to abortion, we are not even able to think about it, or even discuss it honestly. The perpetual use of the dishonest language of PC euphemism signals the weakness of "Roe v. Wade", that regardless of any perceived rights of privacy. It can never trump a human being's civil rights, or it would do so in all other situations, which it clearly does not.
The Democrat political leaders that use this dishonest language wish to impose an enforced ignorance of the law, reality, and the true nature of just what abortion is; the termination of an innocent human life without due process, redress, recourse, or representation in front of the imperial court that has condemned it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.