Replies

The problem is that your position requires that those unemumerated rights be determined by judges--in other words, by a cabal of black-robed lawyers.

In our republics, each officer of the executive branch is also sworn to NOT enforce statutes of the legislature that each executive officer deems in violation of the un-enumerated inherent rights that our state and federal constitutions protect.

But most importantly, in every criminal case, all 12 randomly selected jurors are bound to NOT enforce unjust statutes. So a statute that 1/12th of the community thinks is in violation of the un-enumerated rights that our constitutions refer to will not be enforced.

What about the right to self-government?

The system of vetoes and separation of powers in our republics is a great advancement toward true self-government.

I prefer to be governed by the people's representatives, except in very specific and enumerated instances.

I prefer our system of citizen oversight of all statutes drawn up in smoke filled rooms.

I believe that my unenumerated rights are safer in the hands of the citizenry than in the hands of the lawyers.

Exactly. But the lawyers (and teachers unionists) that run our state legislatures as well as the lawyers that run the judiciary get a veto too.

Can you find instances from the early history of this nation (when the founding generation was still alive) of anyone using the Ninth Amendment as an argument against state anti-sodomy laws, let alone of courts overturning them? If you can, I will grant that perhaps your interpretation of the effect of the Ninth Amendment is correct.

Yes, up until the mid to late 19th century, the citizenry regulary vetoed statutes that they considered to be in violation of inherent rights. The best example is the slavery statutes. Godfrey Lehman has documented how juries were instrumental in slavery's abolition in the north AND the south. The Zengar case and the Sedition Acts of the 1790s are world famous cases of how our republics protect the un-enumerated rights of its citizens that are referred to in our constitutions.

Nowadays, all jurors are threatened by judges (lawyers) that they will be jailed for contempt if they attempt to exercize their power to nullify unjust statutes.

Whatever one thinks of jury nullification, there is a major difference betwen jury nullification in a single case and the Supreme Court simply declaring that a law no longer exists on the basis of their own political preferences (e.g., Roe v. Wade).

Also, when a president or governor refuses to enforce a law, he can be turfed out of office at the next election and replaced with someone who promises to enforce the law. When do we get rid of Stephen Breyer? Only when he chooses to leave or dies. And then, under your system of jurisprudence, we have to hope that his replacement agrees with us politically, since it is his political desires that will govern the decisions he makes.

Pardon me, but I simply don't like that system.

I have to go now, but I think I see where our difference lies, and I'm not sure it can be worked out.

You seem to think that you are talking about taking power out of the hands of the government.

But your system simply transfers power from one part of the government to another; from the more accountable branches (the legislature and [to a lesser extent] the executive) to the least accountable branch (the judiciary).