[Puddleglum]

I believe that if it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then it is left to the other branches of government - the people - to negotiate. If they chose not to comment on it one way or the other, that's great and actually preferable. But if they pass a law, one can't always say that the Constitution trumps it and that it's one of the "rights" implied but not expressed by the Ninth Amendment. It's up to the legislative government to decide.

That said, I think that government is intruding in our lives to an extent that needs some sort of check. when it takes upteen millions of dollars to run for a simple state or federal congressional seat, then government is by the monied, for the monied, with favors returned to the monied. I think the "people" and the idealism of the Founding Fathers need a little breathing room these days.

[templar]

I believe that if it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then it is left to the other branches of government - the people - to negotiate.

This enters the individual or collective right argument. Does "the people" here refer to individual (non negotioble) rights or to the collective right of the people, acting as the State, to controll the individual rights?

[GraniteStateConservative]

So you believe slavery required a constitutional amendment to end it? You don't believe that the presumption of personal liberty except for a compelling interest by the state was enough?

[MEGoody]

"when it takes upteen millions of dollars to run for a simple state or federal congressional seat, then government is by the monied, for the monied, with favors returned to the monied"

Not that I don't agree, but I haven't figured out an acceptable alternative. Have you?