Ninth Amendment - Uneumerated Rights - or Illegitimate?

Findlaw ^ | 9/8/02 | unknown

[inquest]

Many let the 'states rights' zealots of the time mistakeny THINK that, -- but in reality, - it was well known as a political ploy to enable ratification.

That's the first I've heard that. I'd be very interested, as a matter of pure historical curiosity, where you got that information from. Not that it would harm my argument, though. First of all, my interpretation is still well-supported by the text of the Constitution. And secondly and more importantly, such ploys can never be counted as genuine original intent. I'll cut-and-paste my reply at #155 to SpencerRoane:

"If we're going to establish, as a rule of interpretation, that we should go with the original understanding behind a particular amendment, then we also need to give equal if not greater consideration to the understandings of those who ratified it. And if the drafters deliberately set out to conceal what they considered the true meaning of what they were drafting, then it was an act of fraud, and such 'original intent' on their part should be considered null and void."

[inquest]

Makes sense. As I see it: Text first, then original intent, then legal precedent. Unfortunately, too many people today look to legal precedent before they even read the text. To me, that defeats the whole purpose of writing it down.

[Arthur McGowan]

Impossible. The Constitution does not have anything to do with the powers of local government. Those governments get their powers from the people, through their own constitutions, just as the federal government gets its powers from the people through the federal Constitution.

[tpaine]

"Not that it would harm my argument, though."

Whatever.
Your closed mind, and a well developed ability to nitpick, -- bore the hell out of me.
Maybe later. You're dismissed.

[nopardons]

Listen tpaine, Jim didn't mean that one MUST / is REQUIRED to debate everyone and anyone, when they are pinged, no matter WHAT the topic is. Neither did he set this site up, so that we can each hashout what the Constitution, et al means, word by word. As usual, you're using another's words, OUT OF CONTEXT , with which to fight your battles.

You and I don't have " common goals ", and I will NOT be drawn into your idiotic vanity post. Now, don't ping me, leave me alone, and at least attempt to use your own words and fight your own battles.

[inquest]

And once again, you lose the argument, as pretty much anyone can see. It's surprising that you think you're actually convincing anyone of anything, when all you do is talk about what you want to talk about, and completely ignore everything else - oh, and not to mention your usual devastating counterresponse: "Whatever". Yeah, that's just gonna convince everyone of your wisdom and insight, LOLOLOL!

Roscoe was right: Zealots hate facts.

[tpaine]

Get help, or get lost. -- Why should I 'talk' about what's on your agenda?

BTW - I've made it quite clear, - I don't ~care~ about convincing you of anything. You have a closed mind.

[inquest]

Get help

Oh, that oughta be interesting. "Doctor, I'm focusing way too much on facts and logic when I post to FR. And I'm having the hardest time spewing out emotionally charged non sequiturs. What can be done for me?"

I don't ~care~ about convincing you of anything.

Hmm, I see you have reading comprehension problems too. I didn't say you had no chance of convincing me of anything (that's a given). I said you had no chance of convincing anybody at all of anything, because you don't have the slightest clue about how to frame a rational argument. Oh sorry, was I "nitpicking" again?

[tpaine]

Yes.

You are also quite obsessed with being rejected. Best you learn cope. Now get lost.

[inquest]

No, not obsessed, just enjoy publicly bursting your bubble, that's all.

[tpaine]

Hubris, meet 'inquest', a real bubble pricker.