Ninth Amendment - Uneumerated Rights - or Illegitimate?

Findlaw ^ | 9/8/02 | unknown

[Roscoe]

the Justice White opinion here above is an example of a rare exception.

False. You never have a source for your invented facts, do you?

[Roscoe]

Manufacturing fraudulent quotes is consistent with their "principles."

[tpaine]

The common law, in that type of 'moralizing lawmaking' is directly in opposition to constitutional principle.

[inquest]

That isn't my 'interpretation', its yours.

You have it exactly backwards. My interpretation, which is the interpretation of the founders as well as pretty much every legal authority since, has been that Section 9 applies only to the federal government, not the states, because it only engages in passive negative constructions, just like the bulk of the BOR. You, on the other hand, have been insisting that such constructions restrict both the states and federal government, and that has no basis in either the stated intent of the writers, or the wording of the document.

Judges can be over-ruled by legislators...

Not when they're speaking ex cathedra about constitutional matters. In those cases, they (purport to) override the legislatures.

...amendments...

Well, duh. Anything can be overriden by amendment. But constitutional amendments were never intended to be part of the regular operation of government, but only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. They are not a part of the whole "checks-and-balances" scheme.

...or civil disobedience.

And that buys another duh. I guess we can go back to absolute monarchy now, since we have civil disobedience to protect us.

[inquest]

But like I said, it's there to protect the patient, not the doctor.

[tpaine]

To the contrary.
I urge you authoritarian fundamentalists to try to pass constitutional amendments for all these 'moral' laws you advocate.

[Cultural Jihad]

That famous colonial melodious group 'Banned in Boston'
played live before the Continental Congress.

[Roscoe]

The common law, in that type of 'moralizing lawmaking' is directly in opposition to constitutional principle.

The Common Law is unconstitutional? What a bizarre philosophy, totally divorced from reality.

[tpaine]

Spoken like a good little member of the prohibitory blue nose faction. - Thanks.

[Roscoe]

But like I said, it's there to protect the patient, not the doctor.

Agreed.

[Roscoe]

Criminal sodomy laws in effect in 1791: Connecticut: 1 Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut, 1808, Title LXVI, ch. 1, 2 (rev. 1672). Delaware: 1 Laws of the State of Delaware, 1797, ch. 22, 5 (passed 1719). Georgia had no criminal sodomy statute until 1816, but sodomy was a crime at common law, and the General Assembly adopted the common law of England as the law of Georgia in 1784. The First Laws of the State of Georgia, pt. 1, p. 290 (1981). Maryland had no criminal sodomy statute in 1791. Maryland's Declaration of Rights, passed in 1776, however, stated that "the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England," and sodomy was a crime at common law. 4 W. Swindler, Sources and Documents of United States Constitutions 372 (1975). Massachusetts: Acts and Laws passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, ch. 14, Act of Mar. 3, 1785. New Hampshire passed its first sodomy statute in 1718. Acts and Laws of New Hampshire 1680-1726, p. 141 (1978). Sodomy was a crime at common law in New Jersey at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The State enacted its first criminal sodomy law five years later. Acts of the Twentieth General Assembly, Mar. 18, 1796, ch. DC, 7. New York: Laws of New York, ch. 21 (passed 1787). [478 U.S. 186, 193] At the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights, North Carolina had adopted the English statute of Henry VIII outlawing sodomy. See Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North-Carolina, ch. 17, p. 314 (Martin ed. 1792). Pennsylvania: Laws of the Fourteenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ch. CLIV, 2 (passed 1790). Rhode Island passed its first sodomy law in 1662. The Earliest Acts and Laws of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1647-1719, p. 142 (1977). South Carolina: Public Laws of the State of South Carolina, p. 49 (1790). At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, Virginia had no specific statute outlawing sodomy, but had adopted the English common law. 9 Hening's Laws of Virginia, ch. 5, 6, p. 127 (1821) (passed 1776).

Criminal sodomy statutes in effect in 1868: Alabama: Ala. Rev. Code 3604 (1867). Arizona (Terr.): Howell Code, ch. 10, 48 (1865). Arkansas: Ark. Stat., ch. 51, Art. IV, 5 (1858). California: 1 Cal. Gen. Laws,  1450, 48 (1865). Colorado (Terr.): Colo. Rev. Stat., ch. 22, 45, 46 (1868). Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat., Tit. 122, ch. 7, 124 (1866). Delaware: Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 131, 7 (1893). Florida: Fla. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 2614 (passed 1868) (1892). Georgia: Ga. Code 4286, 4287, 4290 (1867). Kingdom of Hawaii: Haw. Penal Code, ch. 13, 11 (1869). Illinois: Ill. Rev. Stat., div. 5, 49, 50 (1845). Kansas (Terr.): Kan. Stat., ch. 53, 7 (1855). Kentucky: 1 Ky. Rev. Stat., ch. 28, Art. IV, 11 (1860). Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat., Crimes and Offences, 5 (1856). Maine: Me. Rev. Stat., Tit. XII, ch. 160, 4 (1840). Maryland: 1 Md. Code, Art. 30, 201 (1860). Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Stat., ch. 165, 18 (1860). Michigan: Mich. Rev. Stat., Tit. 30, ch. 158, 16 (1846). Minnesota: Minn. Stat., ch. 96, 13 (1859). Mississippi: Miss. Rev. Code, ch. 64, LII, Art. 238 (1857). Missouri: 1 Mo. Rev. Stat., ch. 50, Art. VIII, 7 (1856). Montana (Terr.): Mont. Acts, Resolutions, Memorials, Criminal Practice Acts, ch. IV, 44 (1866). Nebraska (Terr.): Neb. Rev. Stat., Crim. Code, ch. 4, 47 (1866). [478 U.S. 186, 194] Nevada (Terr.): Nev. Comp. Laws, 1861-1900, Crimes and Punishments, 45. New Hampshire: N. H. Laws, Act. of June 19, 1812, 5 (1815). New Jersey: N. J. Rev. Stat., Tit. 8, ch. 1, 9 (1847). New York: 3 N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. 4, ch. 1, Tit. 5, 20 (5th ed. 1859). North Carolina: N.C. Rev. Code, ch. 34, 6 (1855). Oregon: Laws of Ore., Crimes - Against Morality, etc., ch. 7, 655 (1874). Pennsylvania: Act of Mar. 31, 1860, 32, Pub. L. 392, in 1 Digest of Statute Law of Pa. 1700-1903, p. 1011 (Purdon 1905). Rhode Island: R. I. Gen. Stat., ch. 232, 12 (1872). South Carolina: Act of 1712, in 2 Stat. at Large of S. C. 1682-1716, p. 493 (1837). Tennessee: Tenn. Code, ch. 8, Art. 1, 4843 (1858). Texas: Tex. Rev. Stat., Tit. 10, ch. 5, Art. 342 (1887) (passed 1860). Vermont: Acts and Laws of the State of Vt. (1779). Virginia: Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). West Virginia: W. Va. Code, ch. 149, 12 (1868). Wisconsin (Terr.): Wis. Stat. 14, p. 367 (1839).

[tpaine]

There is no constitutional basis for prohibitions on what doctors can perscribe. Doctors are regulated by criminal law, just like the rest of us.  

[inquest]

You're welcome. And nice to see you're unable to come up with any type of response. That's what happens when blind ideology trumps thought.

[Roscoe]

There is no constitutional basis for prohibitions on what doctors can perscribe.

Wrong again. Medicine is a closely regulated profession.

[Roscoe]

That's what happens when blind ideology trumps thought.

Every time.

[inquest]

There is no constitutional basis for prohibitions on what doctors can perscribe. Doctors are regulated by criminal law, just like the rest of us.

Are you still trying to insist that states get their powers from the U.S. Constitution? Where are you getting this from?

[tpaine]

Thats opinion, R-pap.

But in any case, I don't 'cite or source' for you. - It's a waste of time.

[Roscoe]

But in any case, I don't 'cite or source' for you

Yep, you just invent "facts" as you go along.

[Roscoe]

Are you still trying to insist that states get their powers from the U.S. Constitution? Where are you getting this from?

He just pulled it out of his assumptions.

[inquest]

Well that made me laugh my assumptions off!