Exactly! -- Why do you think a state SHOULD have such powers?
What makes you think that I DO think that?
Because you posted it, exactly as above.
Come on, man - you're better than that. How many times have I seen you complain when other people misinterpret your words.
Saying that states no longer have some power is really not the same as saying that they should have that power, is it? I'm saying that they used to be able to do lots of things that they can't now, and you're turning that around to mean that I think they should be able to do those things. It doesn't follow - you're reading things into it that aren't there...
I'm saying that they used to be able to do lots of things that they can't now, and you're turning that around to mean that I think they should be able to do those things. It doesn't follow - you're reading things into it that aren't there.
-------------------------------
dirtboy; Doug Loss
Sorry, I should have been more clear - obviously this is in light of the 14'th Amendment. Considering the 14'th, the 9'th Amendment really does become a wish list, where there's no logical grounds for determining what is and isn't a "right" of the people.
Some conservatives are enamored of the 9'th Amendment because they see it as a way of restricting government, but truthfully it can be just as easily used the other way, to impose values that conservatives might find objectionable.
Ponder this one - suppose SCOTUS were to declare tomorrow that gay marriage was a 9'th Amendment right, that applied to the states via the 14'th. How do you object to that? How do you show that it's somehow not a right? No, the 9'th Amendment is best left dead - it's just too dangerous to actually use.
It's no accident that there's approximately one Supreme Court case in all of American history that cites the 9'th Amendment, and that was in concurrence, and is not binding precedent.
26 posted on 7/23/02 8:01 AM Pacific by general_re