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

[beretta304]

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.

Cherry pick much? Context, my friend.


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.

 

[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.

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?

Quite a bit. Why?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Cherry pick much?

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

 

[beretta304]

Cherry pick much?

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

Where did I say it did or better yet where did that quote say it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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).

The Bill of Rights, Amendments, were added later, but were part of the compromise without which there would be no constitution to add amendments to.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Excellent question. But you are a tad late.

Federal Judges , in their quest to uphold the fascist laws enacted by the continuing criminal enterprise, abolished the Ninth Amendment.

Soorry. Better lick next time.

.

,.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Quite a bit. Why?

Wondering why it would be a big deal that people today have biased opinions and "read stuff into it that fits their purpose" as if that wasn't always the case, as if it were something unusual

 

[Inthemiddle]

Cherry pick much?

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

Where did I say it did or better yet where did that quote say it?

So then, since the constitution does not give Congress that power, then based on your previous post, that means that any law banning drugs, abortions, or same sex marriage is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment.

 

[beretta304]

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

Where did I say it did or better yet where did that quote say it?

So then, since the constitution does not give Congress that power, then based on your previous post, that means that any law banning drugs, abortions, or same sex marriage is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment.

I suppose if I were an expert and made the actual laws you might have a point. As such I don't and therefore your point is subject to interpretation.

Congress has lots of powers that were not given directly to them by the Constitution.

Not every law is a constitutional ammendment.

You're free to disagree. Great country America, isn't it?

Are you arguing that if it isn't in the Constitution then it can be disregarded?

 

[jillian]

Cherry pick much?

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

general welfare clause? commerce clause?

 

[beretta304]

Cherry pick much?

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

general welfare clause? commerce clause?

There you go Inthemiddle. She's an attorney. I am not.

 

[jillian]

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.

given that our system is based on english common law, it was always understood that the courts would interpret and apply the law and that there would be a body of caselaw forming precedent for future courts.

going back and having a look at marbury v madison is pretty helpful in sussing that out.

 

[Contumacious]

Not at all. Where does the constitution grant Congress the power to control substances? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate a person's choice of medical procedures, or their reproductive decisions? Where does it give Congress the power to regulate family living decisions?

Where did I say it did or better yet where did that quote say it?

So then, since the constitution does not give Congress that power, then based on your previous post, that means that any law banning drugs, abortions, or same sex marriage is unconstitutional under the 9th amendment.

Absolutely correct.

But the LIBERTARIAN 9th Amendment was substituted for the fascist one.

The latter states that rights are now privileges subject to bureaucratic discretion.

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

given that our system is based on english common law, it was always understood that the courts would interpret and apply the law and that there would be a body of caselaw forming precedent for future courts.

going back and having a look at marbury v madison is pretty helpful in sussing that out.

And of course, by "interpretation" she means amending, abolishing, substituting.

They know that Americans go to government schools where they are brainwashed into accepting slavery and government control.

Further conditioning goes on at the nations ' airports where Americans are indoctrinated into allowing bureaucratic control of their junks.

.

 

[jillian]

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.

given that our system is based on english common law, it was always understood that the courts would interpret and apply the law and that there would be a body of caselaw forming precedent for future courts.

going back and having a look at marbury v madison is pretty helpful in sussing that out.

And of course, by "interpretation" she means amending, abolishing, substituting.

They know that Americans go to government schools where they are brainwashed into accepting slavery and government control.

Further conditioning goes on at the nations ' airports where Americans are indoctrinated into allowing bureaucratic control of their junks.

.

no. i meant interpretation. i chose my words carefully.

what meaning does 'due process' have absent caselaw? it is not the same in all cases. some things require greater process than others.

what does "unreasonable searches and seizures" mean absent caselaw? the constitution doesn't say one is exempt from search or seizure of property. only that such search and/or seizure must be reasonable under the circumstances.

what is a 'taking' absent the caselaw?

this idea that there is no interpretation is bizarre to me.

and if you'd like to know what the greatest leap in that regard is that i've seen in the course of my entire career, it was the leap taken in Citizens United finding that corporations were people.

so what were you saying about amending, abolishing and substituting?

as for the rest of your rant, it's not really worth addressing because it isn't releavnt.

although, you might want to look at the exceptions which permit warrantless searches when circumstances are exigent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

given that our system is based on english common law, it was always understood that the courts would interpret and apply the law and that there would be a body of caselaw forming precedent for future courts.

going back and having a look at marbury v madison is pretty helpful in sussing that out.

And of course, by "interpretation" she means amending, abolishing, substituting.

They know that Americans go to government schools where they are brainwashed into accepting slavery and government control.

Further conditioning goes on at the nations ' airports where Americans are indoctrinated into allowing bureaucratic control of their junks.

.

no. i meant interpretation. i chose my words carefully.

what meaning does 'due process' have absent caselaw? it is not the same in all cases. some things require greater process than others.

what does "unreasonable searches and seizures" mean absent caselaw? the constitution doesn't say one is exempt from search or seizure of property. only that such search and/or seizure must be reasonable under the circumstances.

what is a 'taking' absent the caselaw?

this idea that there is no interpretation is bizarre to me.

and if you'd like to know what the greatest leap in that regard is that i've seen in the course of my entire career, it was the leap taken in Citizens United finding that corporations were people.

so what were you saying about amending, abolishing and substituting?

as for the rest of your rant, it's not really worth addressing because it isn't releavnt.

although, you might want to look at the exceptions which permit warrantless searches when circumstances are exigent.

why bother? Contumacious is a tool. Just shouting out insults

 

[Contumacious]

given that our system is based on english common law, it was always understood that the courts would interpret and apply the law and that there would be a body of caselaw forming precedent for future courts.



going back and having a look at marbury v madison is pretty helpful in sussing that out.

And of course, by "interpretation" she means amending, abolishing, substituting.

They know that Americans go to government schools where they are brainwashed into accepting slavery and government control.

Further conditioning goes on at the nations ' airports where Americans are indoctrinated into allowing bureaucratic control of their junks.

.

no. i meant interpretation. i chose my words carefully.

what meaning does 'due process' have absent caselaw? it is not the same in all cases. some things require greater process than others."

No you meant USURPATION


Due Process of Law

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most deeply rooted principles in American jurisprudence is the concept of due process of law, which is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Due process of law actually stretches back to the year 1215, when the great barons of England extracted an admission from their king that his powers over the citizenry were not unlimited but instead were limited by fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Included among the restrictions on power to which King John acceded in the Magna Carta — the Great Charter — was a prohibition against the exercise of arbitrary seizure of people or their property by government officials:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Over the centuries, that phrase — “the law of the land” — gradually evolved into the phrase “due process of law,” the same phrase our American ancestors insisted be made part of the Constitution through the adoption of the Fifth Amendment.

what does "unreasonable searches and seizures" mean absent caselaw?

An example of bold face usurpation:

The precedent set up Boyd v. United States - 116 U.S. 616 (1886) has been set aside by the current SCOTUS which has amended the Constitution by allowing states to forcefully draw blood from a possible DUI defendant.

.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Are you arguing that if it isn't in the Constitution then it can be disregarded?

No. Just demonstrating that the "rights retained by the people" of the ninth amendment cannot be taken to literally establish any given right as protected. If it did, then we have to start asking which rights, and why those and not these.

The purpose of the ninth amendment is not to confer rights, but to serve as a guide for how the constitution should be interpreted. As Hamilton said, why have a bill of rights to guarantee that which a limited government has not been given power to infringe upon? It folly to attempt to extract specific rights from the ninth amendment as being constitutionally protected. The amendment is meant merely as an affirmation that the amending of the constitution to enumerate protected rights is not to be interpreted as to infer additional powers of Congress beyond those enumerated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And of course, by "interpretation" she means amending, abolishing, substituting.

They know that Americans go to government schools where they are brainwashed into accepting slavery and government control.

Further conditioning goes on at the nations ' airports where Americans are indoctrinated into allowing bureaucratic control of their junks.

.

no. i meant interpretation. i chose my words carefully.

what meaning does 'due process' have absent caselaw? it is not the same in all cases. some things require greater process than others."

No you meant USURPATION


Due Process of Law

by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the most deeply rooted principles in American jurisprudence is the concept of due process of law, which is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Due process of law actually stretches back to the year 1215, when the great barons of England extracted an admission from their king that his powers over the citizenry were not unlimited but instead were limited by fundamental principles of fairness and justice. Included among the restrictions on power to which King John acceded in the Magna Carta — the Great Charter — was a prohibition against the exercise of arbitrary seizure of people or their property by government officials:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Over the centuries, that phrase — “the law of the land” — gradually evolved into the phrase “due process of law,” the same phrase our American ancestors insisted be made part of the Constitution through the adoption of the Fifth Amendment.

what does "unreasonable searches and seizures" mean absent caselaw?

An example of bold face usurpation:

The precedent set up Boyd v. United States - 116 U.S. 616 (1886) has been set aside by the current SCOTUS which has amended the Constitution by allowing states to forcefully draw blood from a possible DUI defendant.

.

Boyd hasn’t been ‘set aside’ or overturned; its fundamental holding that a 4th Amendment violation need not be an unwarranted invasion of one’s actual home and papers is still in effect. Subsequent rulings have limited the scope of Boyd, but the fundamental principle of personal privacy is still a relevant precedent, as we see in Griswold/Roe/Casey.

Indeed, the genius of the Anglo-American tradition of judicial review and its doctrine of the interpretive authority of the courts compels jurists to subject the law to a crucible of reason, logic, and consistency designed to establish trusted precedent useful to later generations facing similar legal issues; as the Casey Majority observed, “[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.”

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have

The First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination are well-known, but the Ninth Amendment is ignored. Pity, because it bears directly on abortion, the right to die and gay rights.

April 22, 2007 | The following is an excerpt from Daniel A. Farber's forthcoming " Retained by the People: The 'Silent' Ninth Amendment and the Constitutional Rights Americans Don't Know They Have" (Perseus Books, 2007), available April 30.

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

...

Everyone knows about the First Amendment right of free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination. Even the once-forgotten Second Amendment, with its "right to bear arms," has reemerged in public debate. But few people know about the Ninth Amendment, which reaffirms in broad terms rights "retained by the people." Indeed, 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.

The history of the Constitution reveals the purpose of the Ninth and the Founders' intent: to protect what constitutional lawyers call unenumerated rights -- those rights the Founder assumed and felt no need to specify in the Bill of Rights. Unenumerated rights include, for example, the right to privacy. In the America of today, unenumerated rights account for freedoms like a woman's right to abortion.

...

interesting review