Ninth Amendment - Uneumerated Rights - or Illegitimate?

Findlaw ^ | 9/8/02 | unknown

[tpaine]

The Ninth Amendment was intended to limit the power of the federal, state, & local governments to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and to those limited by the Bill of Rights.

[Roscoe]

The Ninth Amendment was intended to limit the power of the federal, state, & local governments to those powers enumerated in the Constitution

False. Citeless, sourceless, meritless.

[inquest]

You can't make a coherant comparison, so I'm supposed to 'see it'. Weird.

OK, fine, I'll spell it out for you (I knew I was going to have to anyway). From Section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." From Section 10: "No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder [or] ex post facto Law...." Now, perhaps you can answer, why was it necessary for Section 10 to explicitly prohibit states from doing something that Section 9, according to your interpretation, already prohibited them from doing?

You haven't defined whats 'untenable', imo.

I told you that the situation makes legislators out of judges. That's an untenable situation, from a constitutional perspective. You know, separation of powers, all that boring stuff.

[x]

Constitutional provisions are better when they are clear and specific. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments were motivated by fear of what the federal government would do. There was a desire to nail down the powers and scope of the federal government. But such catch-all amendments, particularly the Ninth, aren't as valuable or useful as more specific provisions of the Constitution. In the end the Ninth is a gift to judges to interpret as they will. As to a large degree the Fourteenth has been, and the ERA would have been.

[inquest]

The Ninth Amendment was intended to limit the power of the federal, state, & local governments to those powers enumerated in the Constitution....

HUH? But the Constitution doesn't enumerate any powers for state and local government. Does that mean the 9th prohibits them from exercising any powers at all?

[Roscoe]

He's already falling apart, I hope there's some scraps left for you. :)

[tpaine]

You, Justice White, and other supporters of that opinion are moral fundamentalists who value majority rule over individual freedom. -- A principle totally in opposition to original intent, imo.
This issue MUST be resolved for individual freedom, or we will lose our free republic.

[tpaine]

I say, keep the courts busy repealing unconstitutional law, and we promote freedom.

[Roscoe]

You, Justice White, and other supporters of that opinion are moral fundamentalists who value majority rule over individual freedom.

Sodomy was a violation of the common law.

[Roscoe]

I say, keep the courts busy repealing unconstitutional law

You have no interest in what's Constitutional, only in imposing your own cult philosophy on the American people by whatever means possible. You're glorifying judicial legislation, which is violative of the Constitution's separation of powers.

[tpaine]

"doctors do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in what they do as part of their jobs. To say that the right to privacy extends to their professional actions is to completely stand the notion of privacy on its head."

I think YOU may be spending to much time inverted, me boyo. Doctor/patient privacy is a given, in my book.

[inquest]

Protecting anal sex does not promote freedom. You may notice that the biggest and most powerful enemies of freedom in our society today are without exception adamant about protecting every deranged vice known to man. Ever wonder why that may be, and if it's more than just a simple coincidence? Your insistence that people must be free to pursue these things in order to be free in a larger and more meaningful sense has absolutely no basis in human experience. None.

[tpaine]

But tpaine and his ilk would destroy the very systems of representative government through which such work is done.
28 - roscoe
________________________________

Sheer lying roscoe-bull, without a shread of crediblity to the charge. You're a pitiful liar roscoe, and can NOT back up that statement.

Take this kind of crap to the back room.
35 posted on 9/8/02 12:31 PM Pacific by tpaine __________________________________
To: tpaine

Post 31: Yep, prohibiionary politics by 'moral majority' rule. - A direct subversion of our constitutional principles.

Post 35: You're a pitiful liar roscoe, and can NOT back up that statement.

Busted! That was easy.
_________________________________

Goofy conclusion! That was easy!

[tpaine]

Roscoe-pap

[MissAmericanPie]

I think I just hurt a vital organ laughing at your post #10

[inquest]

Doctor/patient privacy is a given, in my book.

It's a right for the patient, but not for the doctor. If a doctor prescribes something that he knows is illegal, he really doesn't have much basis for protesting that his right to privacy has been violated.

[tpaine]

You can't make a coherant comparison, so I'm supposed to 'see it'. Weird.

OK, fine, I'll spell it out for you (I knew I was going to have to anyway). From Section 9: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." From Section 10: "No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder [or] ex post facto Law...." Now, perhaps you can answer, why was it necessary for Section 10 to explicitly prohibit states from doing something that Section 9, according to your interpretation, already prohibited them from doing?

That isn't my 'interpretation', its yours. --- I've seen better men than you try to use that odd phrasing to make a 'states rights' point. Never has worked, imo.

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

You haven't defined whats 'untenable', imo.

I told you that the situation makes legislators out of judges. That's an untenable situation, from a constitutional perspective. You know, separation of powers, all that boring stuff.

Judges can be over-ruled by legislators, amendments, or civil disobedience. -- All that boring checks-n-balance stuff. --- Thus there is no 'untenable' situation. Cept in your mind.

[Roscoe]

The doctor/patient privilege has its origins in the Common Law, just like the laws against sodomy and prostitution.

[tpaine]

Judges can be over-ruled by legislators, amendments, or civil disobedience.
But they rarely are when ruling FOR individual rights.

Roscoes cite of the Justice White opinion here above is an example of a rare exception. - I doubt it will stand long.

[Cultural Jihad]

It must be one of the 'principle thangs' to post fraudulent quotes.