9th Amendment to the US Constitution: rights retained by the people

[Procrustes Stretched]

9th Amendment to the US Constitution: rights retained by the people

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." --The Ninth Amendment

What rights are these? The right to privacy? Natural rights? Rights granted to previous generations by Lords and Kings?

 

[beretta304]

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is parallel to that of the Tenth Amendment -- especially the last four words of the Tenth.

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that the federal government cannot do what it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do. The people who proposed and ratified the Constitution (before any amendments were proposed) granted to the federal government only certain powers. The reason that "the people" "retain" rights that the Constitution does not mention is because the powers of the federal government are limited. "All is retained which has not been surrendered." When a person is challenging a federal law and making the claim that the law violates his/her "rights," that person does not have to prove that the "right" they are talking about is a right mentioned by the Constitution. The burden is on the federal government to prove that it does have authority to make that law.

See the opinions by certain Justices in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut -- in particular compare Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion to Justice Black's dissent. Lancelot's quotation above was from Goldberg's opinion in that case.

Source(s):
Griswold v. Conn. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

 

[beretta304]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically identify any individual rights like the eight amendments that precede it, rather the Ninth Amendment sets forth a rule of construction that is to guide one when interpreting the Constitution. It makes the drafter's intent clear that the enumeration of certain rights in the body of the Constitution1 or in the Amendments thereto shall not be considered to be exhaustive or all inclusive, but rather illustrative. Moreover, when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment2 the principal of individual sovereignty and a limited government of delegated powers is firmly established. Therefore the Ninth Amendment, when interpreted in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, should be read as establishing a rule of construction that demonstrates that the Constitution, as a whole, should be construed to mean that the people retain all powers (i.e. right or authority) not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor delegated to their respective State governments by the several State Constitutions.
Source(s):
Legal Eagle
The Forgotten Ninth Amendment
By: Steven H. Atherton, Esq.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the Ninth flies so far under the radar that it has rarely been mentioned even by the Supreme Court.

What a pity. Even more, what a terrible oversight: the Ninth Amendment bears directly on such modern-day constitutional issues as abortion, the right to die, and gay rights.

The Ninth Amendment is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers thought about the liberties they expected Americans to enjoy under the Constitution. They did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny.

interesting article on this:
The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have | Alternet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically identify any individual rights like the eight amendments that precede it, rather the Ninth Amendment sets forth a rule of construction that is to guide one when interpreting the Constitution. It makes the drafter's intent clear that the enumeration of certain rights in the body of the Constitution1 or in the Amendments thereto shall not be considered to be exhaustive or all inclusive, but rather illustrative. Moreover, when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment2 the principal of individual sovereignty and a limited government of delegated powers is firmly established. Therefore the Ninth Amendment, when interpreted in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, should be read as establishing a rule of construction that demonstrates that the Constitution, as a whole, should be construed to mean that the people retain all powers (i.e. right or authority) not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor delegated to their respective State governments by the several State Constitutions.
Source(s):
Legal Eagle
The Forgotten Ninth Amendment
By: Steven H. Atherton, Esq.

This is why the founders and framers chose the 'people' to ratify the US Constitution, and not the 'states'

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

individual rights and popular sovereignty (not individual sovereignty)

 

[jillian]

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is parallel to that of the Tenth Amendment -- especially the last four words of the Tenth.

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that the federal government cannot do what it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do. The people who proposed and ratified the Constitution (before any amendments were proposed) granted to the federal government only certain powers. The reason that "the people" "retain" rights that the Constitution does not mention is because the powers of the federal government are limited. "All is retained which has not been surrendered." When a person is challenging a federal law and making the claim that the law violates his/her "rights," that person does not have to prove that the "right" they are talking about is a right mentioned by the Constitution. The burden is on the federal government to prove that it does have authority to make that law.

See the opinions by certain Justices in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut -- in particular compare Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion to Justice Black's dissent. Lancelot's quotation above was from Goldberg's opinion in that case.

Source(s):
Griswold v. Conn. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Justice Black's dissent isn't law.

and the quote you give still lends itself to a discussion of what was given and what was retained. that was disposed of, at least partially, with the enactment of the first ten amendments. which set forth, minimally, what was retained, which if viewed as a whole, seems to be the privacy of the individual citizen and his freedom from interference in his words, property and religion. those basic rights, and the others set forth in the bill of rights.

just as a sidenote, the constitution was only intended to apply to white males. it never said a thing about infringing on the rights of blacks and women.

 

[martybegan]

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is parallel to that of the Tenth Amendment -- especially the last four words of the Tenth.

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that the federal government cannot do what it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do. The people who proposed and ratified the Constitution (before any amendments were proposed) granted to the federal government only certain powers. The reason that "the people" "retain" rights that the Constitution does not mention is because the powers of the federal government are limited. "All is retained which has not been surrendered." When a person is challenging a federal law and making the claim that the law violates his/her "rights," that person does not have to prove that the "right" they are talking about is a right mentioned by the Constitution. The burden is on the federal government to prove that it does have authority to make that law.

See the opinions by certain Justices in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut -- in particular compare Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion to Justice Black's dissent. Lancelot's quotation above was from Goldberg's opinion in that case.

Source(s):
Griswold v. Conn. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Justice Black's dissent isn't law.

and the quote you give still lends itself to a discussion of what was given and what was retained. that was disposed of, at least partially, with the enactment of the first ten amendments. which set forth, minimally, what was retained, which if viewed as a whole, seems to be the privacy of the individual citizen and his freedom from interference in his words, property and religion. those basic rights, and the others set forth in the bill of rights.

just as a sidenote, the constitution was only intended to apply to white males. it never said a thing about infringing on the rights of blacks and women.

It was intended for "citizens" of the various states, and yes at the time, those were white (property holding) males. Over time the states changed thier citizenship rules, and of course, the amendments from the civil war modified the definition of a citizen at the federal level. Adding in the womens right to vote, as well as the voting age amendment further set federal requirements for citizen rights and voter rights.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That article is considerably biased.

 

[beretta304]

In short its saying: no list of rights will deny or discourage other rights which the people have. One right won't cancel out another right. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically identify any individual rights like the eight amendments that precede it, rather the Ninth Amendment sets forth a rule of construction that is to guide one when interpreting the Constitution. It just means that it's not an all-inclusive lists. It reserves the rights to the people and the states to from time to time enumerate more rights.

For instance, the right to privacy is stated nowhere in the Constitution, however the Court has decided that a right to privacy is inherent in the Constitution, at least partially basing their decision on the 9th amendment.

 

[jillian]

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is parallel to that of the Tenth Amendment -- especially the last four words of the Tenth.

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that the federal government cannot do what it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do. The people who proposed and ratified the Constitution (before any amendments were proposed) granted to the federal government only certain powers. The reason that "the people" "retain" rights that the Constitution does not mention is because the powers of the federal government are limited. "All is retained which has not been surrendered." When a person is challenging a federal law and making the claim that the law violates his/her "rights," that person does not have to prove that the "right" they are talking about is a right mentioned by the Constitution. The burden is on the federal government to prove that it does have authority to make that law.

See the opinions by certain Justices in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut -- in particular compare Justice Goldberg's concurring opinion to Justice Black's dissent. Lancelot's quotation above was from Goldberg's opinion in that case.

Source(s):
Griswold v. Conn. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Justice Black's dissent isn't law.

and the quote you give still lends itself to a discussion of what was given and what was retained. that was disposed of, at least partially, with the enactment of the first ten amendments. which set forth, minimally, what was retained, which if viewed as a whole, seems to be the privacy of the individual citizen and his freedom from interference in his words, property and religion. those basic rights, and the others set forth in the bill of rights.

just as a sidenote, the constitution was only intended to apply to white males. it never said a thing about infringing on the rights of blacks and women.

It was intended for "citizens" of the various states, and yes at the time, those were white (property holding) males. Over time the states changed thier citizenship rules, and of course, the amendments from the civil war modified the definition of a citizen at the federal level. Adding in the womens right to vote, as well as the voting age amendment further set federal requirements for citizen rights and voter rights.

absolutely.

it always struck me as sad, though, that they couldn't manage to pass the ERA. it seems such a fundamental thing...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

just as a sidenote, the constitution was only intended to apply to white males. it never said a thing about infringing on the rights of blacks and women.

And not all white men. There were debates over who was to have a vote.

But all men are created equal.

Taking the 'white males' idea out of context seems to trivialize much of what the document is about. In only a few years/decades after it's adoption/ratification, the ongoing conversation about who had protected status under the Constitution evolved.

that said, a trivia question "Who were and were not covered under the US Constitution during it's initial adoption?" is sadly amusing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That article is considerably biased.

Opinions usually are

it's all a matter of context and fairness. Bias can be and is viewed as fair within certain bounds

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The 9th and 10th won't exist in Constitution 2.0

 

[nodoginnafight]

That article is considerably biased.

That happens a lot when people talk about the Constitution. Since it is the foundation of all our law, people want to read stuff into it that fits their purpose.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It was intended for "citizens" of the various states...

No. It was intended for citizens of the federal republic, as citizens of a nation. We the people is a statement of we as US Citizens, not as citizens of separate states.

there is much written on this from the framers themselves, and as Madison wrote .. look to the ratifiers understood for understanding and the meanings of the document, not to the framers.

The authority invested in the US Constitution comes from those who ratified it, not from the clerks who wrote it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progs will be working 14 hour days on Greenbeards farm, watched 24/7 by guys with full automatic AK-47s with 75 round clips. Their city will have a wall to keep them in. Greenbeard will throw them a piece of paper with their weekly Obamarations and tell them to write in "what rights you think you have"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Justice Black's dissent isn't law.

and the quote you give still lends itself to a discussion of what was given and what was retained. that was disposed of, at least partially, with the enactment of the first ten amendments. which set forth, minimally, what was retained, which if viewed as a whole, seems to be the privacy of the individual citizen and his freedom from interference in his words, property and religion. those basic rights, and the others set forth in the bill of rights.

just as a sidenote, the constitution was only intended to apply to white males. it never said a thing about infringing on the rights of blacks and women.

It was intended for "citizens" of the various states, and yes at the time, those were white (property holding) males. Over time the states changed thier citizenship rules, and of course, the amendments from the civil war modified the definition of a citizen at the federal level. Adding in the womens right to vote, as well as the voting age amendment further set federal requirements for citizen rights and voter rights.

absolutely.

it always struck me as sad, though, that they couldn't manage to pass the ERA. it seems such a fundamental thing...

Who couldn't pass the ERA?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean that the federal government cannot do what it was not authorized by the U.S. Constitution to do.

Well, that's simple enough. So it's unconstitutional to prohibit abortion, drug use, or have federal laws about marriage. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That article is considerably biased.

That happens a lot when people talk about the Constitution. Since it is the foundation of all our law, people want to read stuff into it that fits their purpose.

Considering the people who wrote the US Constitution, and 'the people' who ratified could not always agree on the meanings and understanding of it...why should we today not have differing opinions that are biased?

Do you read American history?