The Ninth Amendment

7/23/02 | Doug Loss

[dixie sass]

Calvin Massey, in his book THE SILENT AMENDMENT says "The ninth amendment and the constitutions unenumerated rights, argues that it is now "impossible to achieve the amendments original function of limiting the implied powers of the federal government because of the modern expansion of federal powers." Massey also argues "that these unenumerated rights include both natural and positive rights protected in State Constitutions."


Last night in the discussion that followed, we could not separate the ninth and tenth, or at least it seemed that way to me.

[Baseballguy]

This 9th Amendment is the MOST important amendment in the Bill of Rights

Constitution

[dixie sass]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/716045/posts Nation: Is the Constitution Suspended?

[Baseballguy]

Dueling was the prescribed way of figuring out the problems of the 1800's.

Murder has always been against the prusuit of happyness. Hang them High Roy

[billbears]

Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

American Presidents

Following the war, Washington quelled a potentially disastrous bid by his own senior officers, organized by his aide Alexander Hamilton, to declare him king and erect a military dictatorship

No one had a better understanding of the Constitution or a better legal mind than Alexander Hamilton.

Looks to me as if he had no IDEA what the Constitution stated and was just going for an entirely different form of government. What, an elected king?

[Baseballguy]

BINGO you are talking to such as Jefferson and the rest. They knew the exact wording as you wrote it would not be signed and the country would not have been created. They knew what they ment but did not write it. So it goes to us in 2002 to figure what it means to us.

[Twodees]

Your kidding, right? Three fifths a white man.

Those words don't appear in the document. The 3/5s rule was for apportioning congressional representation to include only 3/5s of those inhabitants of a state who were non-citizens or ineligible to vote.

[general_re]

Last night in the discussion that followed, we could not separate the ninth and tenth, or at least it seemed that way to me.

The problem is that if the scope of the Ninth Amendment is potentially radically expanded by the 14'th, the Tenth is radically curtailed by it. There are lots of powers the states no longer have by virtue of the 14'th Amendment, chief among them the fact that they no longer have (virtually) any powers that restrict an individual's rights under the Bill of Rights. Look at the body of 4'th, 5'th, and 6'th Amendment law over the last 70 years, and I think you'll find it hard to disagree that the powers of the states are significantly less in those areas than they were in the 19'th century...

[dixie sass]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/715740/posts

Bill of Attainder Project

[tpaine]

The priviliges & immunities clause was being violated by states after the civil war, - [IE -- former slaves were being denied the right to own guns] - under the mistaken Marshal Court doctrine that the first ten amendments only limited the federal government.
The 14th was ratified to correct this flaw, and by further defining that the rights included those to 'life, liberty, or property', in effect expanded/defined the meaning of 'unenumerated rights' as per the 9th.
79 posted by tpaine

---

General re, however, makes a good point. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 9th functioned primaraly as a bulwhark against the federal government. With the 14th in place, the 9th could just as easily be used to create a federal right (such as gay marriage), and then an activist court could ram that new right down the throats of the states with the 14th. - dirtboy

---

Fed right? - You mean constitutional right. - The USSC has no power to 'ram' any rights down throats .
States can, and should, fight their case, and if an obviously unconstitutional decision is made against them, use civil disobedience methods to force the issue.

That they do not shows a failure in our political system, not of the constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The man who initially made that claim was tracked down and admitted that it was false. When challenged to meet H. at the dueling ground or retract it he retracted it. But this never stopped H.'s enemies from continuing to spread the lie.

H. did at one point under the Confederation consider using the army to pressure congress to pay it the back pay owed. Washington convinced him it was not a good idea.

Of course, your first paragraph is irrelevent since there was no constitution or president at the time of the supposed incident. And the Confederation had essentially collapsed from impotence. It was years before the Constitution and the election of a President.

He did early on think an elected king might be necessary but realized that it was not workable in this country. This idea was dropped when W. was not agreeable and H.'s ideas changed

Please understand what you are posting. Even this little biography clearly shows this "event" happened at the end of the war not five yrs later. To you the author of the Federalist didn't understand the constitution?

[dixie sass]

Nope, I can't disagree with that argument, at least not right now. I have to check something and I will be back. I believe that the 14th addresses items within the body of the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. Let me check my notes on this.

[Twodees]

What is amusing is that the "constitutional experts" around here universally think these amendments cover any damn thing they want them too

What amuses me is the way you attempt to pass yourself off as a thinking human being. I've been watching you flail at others on this forum for a little over a year now and have yet to see you make a point.

This little blurb of yours to which I'm responding is a classic illustration of your inability to compose even a few coherent sentences. What you were struggling so inarticulately to say here can remain a mystery since nothing you regard as amusing could ever have the slightest relevance to anyone unafflicted with your disorder.

[general_re]

You mean constitutional right. - The USSC has no power to 'ram' any rights down throats .

They do if the 9'th is revived and used in conjunction with the 14'th.

States can, and should, fight their case, and if an obviously unconstitutional decision is made against them, use civil disobedience methods to force the issue.

That's been tried before. It generally doesn't work out well for the states that attempt it ;)

[PistolPaknMama]

too much to read while I'm at work bump!

[Twodees]

Anyway, how do you determine what is and isn't a right under the 9'th Amendment?

A natural right, when exercised, will not interfere with the rights of another person. One has the right, for instance, to defend his life, but not to harm another person who is not threatening him. I'm still interested in learning where you got that "wish list" reference of yours. That is the most bizarre thing I've read in a while.

[billbears]

I know when it happened. However just because Washington's refusal to accept it would not change H. attitude towards a centralized power. I used to believe that he would have been a bad President, however I think that if he would have, the whole argument of secession would have been settled once and for all when one of the two parties had left the 'glorious' union without this ridiculous smoke and mirrors excuse for attacking over slavery being held over our heads 140 years later

[Twodees]

I'm speaking in theory here, not in literal terms, in theory there could exist a majority (or a 2/3 majority to amend or change the state constitution) in a state who chose this form of governement for the state.

Yes, I'm with you that far. There's a condition there, though. Only a republican form of government is valid for a state belonging to the United States. To me, that means that Massachussetts, California and Illinois should be kicked out of the union right away.;-)

[justshutupandtakeit]

My love of Hamilton is of the last two yrs. after I actually took the time to learn about his life and his achievements.
He essentially gave his life for his new country. From the late teens till its end he was on the front lines of the fight for freedom.

Immediately he became a spokesman for the Revolutionary cause who was so effective that the British tried to bribe him over to his side.

He spent the last of his college money given to him by his friends in the Islands to outfit an artillary unit in the militia. His training of it made it so effective than it came to the notice of Washington after saving him from being captured by the British.

He was the chief aide to Washington for 5 yrs and was essentially his auxillary brain. Washington trusted him implicitly and needed only to give him rudimentary instructions for a task to be accomplished. In fact, he wrote Washington's Farewell Address.

He not only was at the Constitutional Convention but gave the longest speech there and at the connivance of Washington the last.

He changed the NY constitutional convention from 2-1 against to adopting the constitution.

He wanted to make the United States a strong nation, a modern nation not a weak, backward one like Jefferson whose idea of a nation of farmers was not only impossible but would have been a disaster in every conceivable way if implemented.

He wrote 2/3s of the greatest work of political philosophy ever written by an American.

His financial program immediately made the credit of the nation the strongest in the world and was so successful that Jefferson left it alone (after opposing it with every lie conceivable) upon achieving office and when the lunatic Republicans allowed the National Bank to die Monroe had to have it rechartered. That is how important it was to the economic and financial health of the nation and government. His opponents never understood it and reverted to outright lies about its working and necessity.

Hamilton was for a strong military and understood international power far better than his enemies. He knew that without a strong government the nation would be reconquered by Britian or portions by the other European powers on this continent. After yrs. of Jeffersonian neglect and disregard of the military the British burned Washington with a few thousand men since we had no army to speak of or navy. Had it seriously wanted to reconquer the country or pick off portions it probably could have.

He was a brilliant military man. A lawyer whom even Marshall revered. Founded the first bank in NY, founded the NY Post- the oldest newpaper in the country.

I could go on and on about the achievements and life of Hamilton. He was a man of incomparable integrity and bravery neither of which can be said of Jefferson.

[Twodees]

In other words, The 14th amendment did what our modern Liberals warn us about in school: amend the Bills of Rights and and we lost that protection from a tyrantical, central government.......So we only have right to bear arms now, because the members of Congress don't have the votes to pass gun removal.

For all your admitted faults in writing, I agree with you, Bingley. Your thinking is sound, which is more than can be said of many who post here.