Replies

>>There must be a clear violation of an existing constitutional provision.<<

Wrong. This was the argument of the federalists, Madison, John Jay and Hamilton prior to the enactment of the Constitution, but was opposed by the anti-federalists, like George Mason. The enactment of the Bill of Rights was a compromise with the anti-federalists.

If your argument were correct, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would be meaningless.

Further, how do you define "liberty"? The Supreme Court say says that liberty includes the right to be let alone. Is that wrong?

###If your argument were correct, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments would be meaningless###

You're wrong. Both of those amendments are designed to keep the federal government out of state matters. They are the last two amendments in the Bill of Rights, which was designed to restrain federal power and assure that sovereignty remained with the states.

Having listed several rights (free speech, etc.) that the federal government could not restrict in the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, there was some fear that it might be argued that the federal government could restrict rights not mentioned. So the ninth & tenth amendments were added to insure that couldn't happen. The ninth amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights (e.g., the right to peaceably assemble) does not deny or diparage the existence of rights not enumerated. Note that it's totally negative in its phrasing. The federal government (which is the entity the Bill of Rights applied to, not the states) may not DENY the existence of additional rights not mentioned in the Constitution. It does not empower them to grant those rights, or to require states to recognize them. It leaves states free to make the decision, by and with, of course, the consent of the voters.

That's why it took constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, give women the vote, etc. The feds couldn't just announce that under the ninth amendment they had found a right not to be enslaved, or a right of women to vote. There are NO federally enforeable rights in the ninth amendment. It is purely negative, designed to keep all branches of the federal government, including the courts, out of issues such as abortion, sodomy, and (prior to the 13th & 19th amendments) slavery and female suffrage.

To say that the ninth amendment is a blank grant of authority to the federal courts to "recognize" rights not found in the Constitution is totally absurd. The whole purpose of the entire Bill of Rights was that the feds had zero authority in such areas.

The ninth amendment would contradict the tenth amendment if your interpretation were correct. The tenth amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution to the states. You're saying the ninth amendment grants federal sovereignty on matters not mentioned in the Constitution and empowers federal courts to dictate state law on such matters.

In fact, the ninth amendment complements the tenth. The tenth says that when the Constitution addresses an issue, it is reserved to the states unless otherwise specified. The ninth says that when the Constitution doesn't address an issue, it's reserved to the states, period.