The Ninth Amendment

7/23/02 | Doug Loss

[tpaine]

"Its dead as a matter of constitutional law."

Bull. - Quote this 'law'.

Surely you know the difference between de jure dead and de facto dead. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are de facto dead. How many laws have been overturned based on the protections afforded by those amendments?

Yep. - No quoted law, just your phony bull, - as expected. - Thanks.

--------------------------

Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.

I don't need to refute it - pointing out that it's just so much armchair quarterbacking serves well enough.

How juvenile. Thanks again.

----------------------------

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?

"You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?"

- No. - Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.

Okay, I'll answer the question - what difference does it make what I think? Before the 14'th Amendment and subsequent court cases flowing from it, neither the states nor the courts nor the federal government thought that the Bill of Rights did much to restrict the states.

No answer. Obviously, you are a 'states rights' devotee, but won't admit it. -- Why?
- Maybe cause you can't rationalize being clearly against the constitution? Strange beliefs, imo.

That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?

Why? -- "What difference does it make?" -- [To quote a recent idiocy.]

[general_re]

Yep. - No quoted law, just your phony bull, - as expected. - Thanks.

So then you can't answer the question? I assumed as much...

No answer. Obviously, you are a 'states rights' devotee, but won't admit it. -- Why?

Really, now - if you're going to play both sides of this discussion, you don't need me, do you?

Maybe cause you can't rationalize being clearly against the constitution? Strange beliefs, imo.

For someone who bitches as much as you do about people reading into his posts, you sure are quick to do it to others. I've never said anything like that, and I highly doubt you can make anything resembling a cogent case to show that I did.

That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?

Why?

(ignoring the gratuitous foolishness)

Because I'm trying to make a point here. However, I'm not about to teach an entire course in Constitutional law to do it, so I'd like to find out what you do know. And then we can proceed from there.

[tpaine]

BTW, your idiotic questions on whether I'm familiar with any specific case prove what?
-- I'm quite familiar with Findlaw, and can look em up, - if there is a reason, - just like you.

[tpaine]

Because I'm trying to make a point here. However, I'm not about to teach an entire course in Constitutional law to do it, so I'd like to find out what you do know. And then we can proceed from there.

---

I've argued the 14th here on FR with better men, and lawyers, than you 'general'.
- Make your point, and spare me your posturing about teaching.

[general_re]

Assuming you are familiar with Gideon then, do you know why it was significant?

[tpaine]

Tell me.

[general_re]

Obviously you missed some fairly significant cases in those arguments. I'm not here to argue philosophy - if you want to discuss how you think the 14'th should have been interpreted, or some other clause should have been interpreted, then be my guest. But you give up the right to make airy-fairy philosophical arguments when you start talking about actual history and how things actually were...

[tpaine]

But you give up the right to make airy-fairy philosophical arguments when you start talking about actual history and how things actually were...

---

Ok with me.
Tell me what you believe to be the actual history I'm misinformed about.

[tpaine]

------CRICKETS--------
Give up the field?

---------------------------

Obviously you missed some fairly significant cases in those arguments.

How weird, you ask only if I'm familar with those cases, then jump to an assumption that I've missed some point you've never made.
I think you're playing some sort of 'authority' bluffing game.

I'm not here to argue philosophy - if you want to discuss how you think the 14'th should have been interpreted, or some other clause should have been interpreted, then be my guest.

And as I've said, -- make your point.
I've made mine. - I support the 14th. It was needed to stop state violations of individual rights. This was made evident in the congressional debates made prior to its ratification.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton's concern was that the governor be balanced with power divided. He at one time believed a permanent executive would be necessary to counteract the impermanent legislature. But he also realized that this would be difficult to gain acceptance by the masses so he cheerfully accepted what the Constitution specified and did more than any man to have it adopted. He feared an overly democratic political system (and has been proven correct) and this is why he thought the executive should represent permanent national interests not short term interest group issues. That is the role of a King such as England has. Not an autocrat not a dictator but a representative of a nation.

Initially the Senate did play the role of the House of Lords with Senators unelected. It was set up deliberately that way.

You keep misunderstanding my attempts to explain what Hamilton wanted or believed as expressions of my desires or beliefs. They are two different things.

I can't understand what you mean by your comments about the Prime Minister. They are changed frequently when they have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and often more frequently than four years.

No one proposed installation of a tyrant as executive. And I don't believe the American people consider the presidency "sacred" quite the contrary. They consider it as the most profane of offices to be bought and sold. Half of those eligible don't even vote. And half of those put the Abomination in office twice.

Power being held in a Senate does not contradict being a republican government nor make a monarchy. Impeachment of Nixon would definitely have happened had he not jumped the gun. Any president the media decides to impeach will be impeached today. Refusal to impeach the Abomination was a blessing in disguise since it would have led to the election of Gore as an incumbent.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So are you saying that slavery was not a punishment to blacks?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Quite the contrary the words of the 1st amendment clearly say "Congress shall make no law...." How does pointing out the actual words deny them?

State sponsored religions continued after the adoption of the Constitution and even a cursory glance at history shows this. I can't imagine how you could not know this.

[tpaine]

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?
--- asked at #142 ----

---

Your reply was, - yes. --

I then quoted Art VI, which says that states are bound to obey the constitution.

-- you still insisted that states are not bound by the 1st, - thus you deny the original intent of Art VI.

Yes, I know that state sponsored religions continued after the adoption of the Constitution and that even a cursory glance at history shows this.
-- Many violations of individual rights continued [like slavery] -- and some still do.

The constitution will prevail, dispite the efforts of fools who deny it's wisdom.

[justshutupandtakeit]

False statement attributed to me.

I said that the 1st amendment was not binding on the States and that is clearly shown by the post-Constitutional existence of State established churches and the trials of Federalist journalists and publishers critical of Jefferson.

Since the 1st amendment was directed at Congress it had no bearing on the States. The rest of the BoR did apply to the states and I never denied it. But there is a big difference between the 1st and the rest. It does not say that the states must do anything nor does it affirm any rights of the citizens as the others do.

You are very confused apparently to have attributed such a false statement to me. Actually I agree with you about the BoR except for the first amendment which instructs Congress what laws it cannot enact. The rest instruct the States what rights they must respect.

The constitution cannot prevail unless it is read and understood it does not empower itself to survive. Survival is only possible if citizens take the time and make the effort to understand what it actually says. Fools believing they understand it when they don't do it no service.

[tpaine]

I said that the 1st amendment was not binding on the States and that is clearly shown by the post-Constitutional existence of State established churches and the trials of Federalist journalists and publishers critical of Jefferson.
Since the 1st amendment was directed at Congress it had no bearing on the States. The rest of the BoR did apply to the states and I never denied it. But there is a big difference between the 1st and the rest. It does not say that the states must do anything nor does it affirm any rights of the citizens as the others do.

You just ignore Art. VI. - Written & ratified before the BoR's -- Thus, you deny the clear original intent of the constitution.

You are very confused apparently to have attributed such a false statement to me. Actually I agree with you about the BoR except for the first amendment which instructs Congress what laws it cannot enact. The rest instruct the States what rights they must respect.

You are not authorized to pick & choose which amendments states are required to obey. They are bound to honor the entire constitution.

The constitution cannot prevail unless it is read and understood it does not empower itself to survive. Survival is only possible if citizens take the time and make the effort to understand what it actually says. Fools believing they understand it when they don't do it no service.

Yep. - It's time you saw that your advice also applies to you.

[inquest]

You are not authorized to pick & choose which amendments states are required to obey.

Just as you are not authorized to pick and choose which sections of the Constitution you want to pay attention to. You keep harping on the "clear wording" of Article VI, but when someone points out the clear words of the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." - it just seems to go right over your head for some reason.

[tpaine]

You are not authorized to pick & choose which amendments states are required to obey.

Just as you are not authorized to pick and choose which sections of the Constitution you want to pay attention to.

Wanna bet? - I pay 'attention to' topics that interest me.

You keep harping on the "clear wording" of Article VI, but when someone points out the clear words of the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." - it just seems to go right over your head for some reason.

No one knows exactly why the wording 'Congress' was specified for only the first. -- The best explanation, imo, is that it was used to pacify those religious fanatics of the day that insisted on the allowing of existing colonial government religions in the new state constitutions. It was a political dodge, a compromise, used to ease ratification.
Sure enough, in the course of time liberty prevailed, and state religions were abandoned.
- Then, with the ratification of the 14th, the point became moot. It's clear intent was that all states were required to comply with all of the BoR's.

[tpaine]

WHO'S AFRAID OF ENUMERATED RIGHTS?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1635527/posts?page=11

[freeangel]

"by the people"

Congress and SCOTUS always assume that they ARE the "people" to whom this amendment refers. It has NOTHING to do with the people who elected them.