The Ninth Amendment

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this, in U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail."

The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Amendment was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, which is a government of enumerated powers.
​

- Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On the first day of his Supreme Court confirmation testimony, Robert Bork described teaching a constitutional theory seminar at Yale Law School in which he tried to justify what he called "a general right of freedom" 1 from the various provisions of the Constitution. He recalled that Alexander Bickel, with whom he taught the course, "fought me every step of the way; said it was not possible. At the end of six or seven years, I decided he was right."
​

- 26 Val L Rev 419

Civil Liberties
Basic Books / By Daniel A. Farber

'Silent' Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don't Know They Have
The Ninth Amendment bears directly on abortion, the right to die and gay rights.

Silent Ninth Amendment Gives Americans Rights They Don t Know They Have Alternet

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

Why can't you answer the question?

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

 

[legaleagle_45]

No mention of Hamilton's Federalist #84 or the correspondence between Jefferson and Madison concerning a Bill of Rights?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

Why can't you answer the question?

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

As many as they care to identify.

Often they referred to "natural rights".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tom Sweetnam Sun Devil 92

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

As many as they care to identify.

Often they referred to "natural rights".

Really? Do you think a majority of people would have had to agree or could a single person have asserted "I have this right!" ???

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Tom Sweetnam Sun Devil 92

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

As many as they care to identify.

Often they referred to "natural rights".

Really? Do you think a majority of people would have had to agree or could a single person have asserted "I have this right!" ???

First....you need a definition of what a "right" is...as opposed to special consideration or privilege.

Then, I would imagine there would be some process for identifying it.

The one thing I don't agree with is the Supreme Court somehow "finding" them.

I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

Why can't you answer the question?

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

I believe (from memory) that they were concerned with trying to make a list.

They felt that if they missed something...it would be interpreted as not existing and not being able to exist.

Hence they only outlined the powers of the Federal Government and restrictions upon it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tom Sweetnam Sun Devil 92

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

As many as they care to identify.

Often they referred to "natural rights".

Really? Do you think a majority of people would have had to agree or could a single person have asserted "I have this right!" ???

First....you need a definition of what a "right" is...as opposed to special consideration or privilege.

Then, I would imagine there would be some process for identifying it.

The one thing I don't agree with is the Supreme Court somehow "finding" them.

I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before.

You appear to be confused as are many who demand "special considerations and privileges." Special considerations and privileges are used to protect the rights of classes of people or individuals. They are not rights in themselves and no lawyer or court has ever viewed it as such nonsense.

A process for deciding what is and is not a right? Ok. So people would vote on if a rights actually exists?

You don't agree with the courts finding them, yet you say there has to be a process for them to exist?

"I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before." - you lost me here. Either we need an English translation or you aren't processing your thoughts in a coherent matter -- but that's a right, it's your privilege

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

Why can't you answer the question?

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

I believe (from memory) that they were concerned with trying to make a list.

They felt that if they missed something...it would be interpreted as not existing and not being able to exist.

Hence they only outlined the powers of the Federal Government and restrictions upon it.

Some people said no list was needed, Others said rights were self evident. How convenient.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Tom Sweetnam Sun Devil 92

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

As many as they care to identify.

Often they referred to "natural rights".

Really? Do you think a majority of people would have had to agree or could a single person have asserted "I have this right!" ???

First....you need a definition of what a "right" is...as opposed to special consideration or privilege.

Then, I would imagine there would be some process for identifying it.

The one thing I don't agree with is the Supreme Court somehow "finding" them.

I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before.

You appear to be confused as are many who demand "special considerations and privileges." Special considerations and privileges are used to protect the rights of classes of people or individuals. They are not rights in themselves and no lawyer or court has ever viewed it as such nonsense.

A process for deciding what is and is not a right? Ok. So people would vote on if a rights actually exists?

You don't agree with the courts finding them, yet you say there has to be a process for them to exist?

"I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before." - you lost me here. Either we need an English translation or you aren't processing your thoughts in a coherent matter -- but that's a right, it's your privilege

I am not confused about anything.

Which is why I stated that a definition of a right is the first place to start.

What did the 19th amendment do ?

What did Griswold do ?

And where are the penumbra's of rights, Douglas called out ?

1. It prohibited denying people the right to vote based on sex.

2. Griswold explicitly identifies the "right to privacy". Douglas found this on his own.

3. They don't. At least not for the SCOTUS to dig up. If they do, they should share them. Douglas' claims were clearly an effort to justify a decision he felt was correct.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You appear to be confused as are many who demand "special considerations and privileges." Special considerations and privileges are used to protect the rights of classes of people or individuals. They are not rights in themselves and no lawyer or court has ever viewed it as such nonsense.

A process for deciding what is and is not a right? Ok. So people would vote on if a rights actually exists?

You don't agree with the courts finding them, yet you say there has to be a process for them to exist?

"I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before." - you lost me here. Either we need an English translation or you aren't processing your thoughts in a coherent matter -- but that's a right, it's your privilege

I am not confused about anything. Which is why I stated that a definition of a right is the first place to start. What did the 19th amendment do ? What did Griswold do ? And where are the penumbra's of rights, Douglas called out ?

1. It prohibited denying people the right to vote based on sex.

2. Griswold explicitly identifies the "right to privacy". Douglas found this on his own.

3. They don't. At least not for the SCOTUS to dig up. If they do, they should share them. Douglas' claims were clearly an effort to justify a decision he felt was correct.

If you mean, which I believe you do, where in the text of the Constitution are the 'penumbras' Justice Douglas pointed to, as if the penumbras should be in black and white, you are clearly confused -- agree or not with Douglas, no one with any bit of intelligence would ask what I believe you have asked. The clue is the term Douglas used 'penumbras'

-- maybe again you are confused with English language usage?

If rather than repeating talking points (you may even be unaware that is what you are in fact doing), you would do some research on your own (it's called 'learning') you'd find out Douglas used a phrase very familiar in constitutional law --

The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas.

In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the "gray area where logic and principle falter." penumbra​

you see? You probably thought Douglas pulled that usage out of his liberal arse, when in fact he used a quite familiar phrase used in constitutional argument. But believing as I do that you are quite a dim bulb and regurgitate what others have put out there, with the mistaken impression that you think on your own....

...must Dante go on?

Sun Devil 92 Officially spanked by Dante

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You appear to be confused as are many who demand "special considerations and privileges." Special considerations and privileges are used to protect the rights of classes of people or individuals. They are not rights in themselves and no lawyer or court has ever viewed it as such nonsense.

A process for deciding what is and is not a right? Ok. So people would vote on if a rights actually exists?

You don't agree with the courts finding them, yet you say there has to be a process for them to exist?

"I may agree that privacy is a right...but, I don't agree that they get to call it one when it wasn't one before." - you lost me here. Either we need an English translation or you aren't processing your thoughts in a coherent matter -- but that's a right, it's your privilege

I am not confused about anything. Which is why I stated that a definition of a right is the first place to start. What did the 19th amendment do ? What did Griswold do ? And where are the penumbra's of rights, Douglas called out ?

1. It prohibited denying people the right to vote based on sex.

2. Griswold explicitly identifies the "right to privacy". Douglas found this on his own.

3. They don't. At least not for the SCOTUS to dig up. If they do, they should share them. Douglas' claims were clearly an effort to justify a decision he felt was correct.

If you mean, which I believe you do, where in the text of the Constitution are the 'penumbras' Justice Douglas pointed to, as if the penumbras should be in black and white, you are clearly confused -- agree or not with Douglas, no one with any bit of intelligence would ask what I believe you have asked. The clue is the term Douglas used 'penumbras'

-- maybe again you are confused with English language usage?

If rather than repeating talking points (you may even be unaware that is what you are in fact doing), you would do some research on your own (it's called 'learning') you'd find out Douglas used a phrase very familiar in constitutional law --

The history of the legal use of the penumbra metaphor can be traced to a federal decision written by Justice stephen j. field in the 1871 decision of Montgomery v. Bevans, 17 F.Cas. 628 (9th C.C.D. Cal.). (At the time, Field was performing circuit duty while a member of the Supreme Court.) Since the Montgomery decision, the penumbra metaphor has not been used often. In fact, more than half of its original uses can be attributed to just four judges: oliver wendell holmes, jr., learned hand, benjamin n. cardozo, and William O. Douglas.

In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the "gray area where logic and principle falter." penumbra​

you see? You probably thought Douglas pulled that usage out of his liberal arse, when in fact he used a quite familiar phrase used in constitutional argument. But believing as I do that you are quite a dim bulb and regurgitate what others have put out there, with the mistaken impression that you think on your own....

...must Dante go on?

Sun Devil 92 Officially spanked by Dante

It's unfortunate that you ignore the point of the post (which is pretty clear) to focus on a canned response.

So, I'll just point out that you ceded the overall point. Thanks.

Next, we'll deal with Douglas use of the word penumbra.....

You can shove the lecture (with the rest of them) as places like lawbrain make it quite clear that Douglas' use of the term is not in the same context as the others.....something I am familiar with but you (in your haste to become a legend in your own mind) didn't bother to comprehend.

Penumbra - lawbrain.com

....but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the bill of rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And thus we see that while Douglas didn't coin the term...he certainly is seen as having used it differently....to find what wasn't there before. Which is what I stated.

Those implied powers are what Douglas pulled from his ass.......

Does Dante need to go on ? In this case....no. Nothing Dante could do would make his failure more complete.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey Dante;

What's the matter....Douglas got your tongue ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How malleable do you think our Constitution should be? People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't. They were born with the business end of muskets. So was our nation. Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

Abstractions:
"something that exists only as an idea." - do you agree with the definition Tom Sweetnam ?

Many of the ideas behind rights were born before Englishmen landed on the shores of North America, when muskets had not yet been invented. Our nation was born out of a rebellion; the Colonials demanded more direct and local representation.

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

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

You're still being awfully vague. Go on, spit it out.

Why can't you answer the question?

What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?

I believe (from memory) that they were concerned with trying to make a list.

They felt that if they missed something...it would be interpreted as not existing and not being able to exist.

Hence they only outlined the powers of the Federal Government and restrictions upon it.

Some people said no list was needed, Others said rights were self evident. How convenient.

Are you saying that wasn't the case ?

Here is from Hamilton in Federalist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What would life be like without the 1st or 2nd (Adams tried to find out anyway) ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

...

...must Dante go on?

Sun Devil 92 Officially spanked by Dante

It's unfortunate that you ignore the point of the post (which is pretty clear) to focus on a canned response.

So, I'll just point out that you ceded the overall point. Thanks.

Next, we'll deal with Douglas use of the word penumbra.....

You can shove the lecture (with the rest of them) as places like lawbrain make it quite clear that Douglas' use of the term is not in the same context as the others.....something I am familiar with but you (in your haste to become a legend in your own mind) didn't bother to comprehend.

Penumbra - lawbrain.com

....but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the bill of rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.

Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And thus we see that while Douglas didn't coin the term...he certainly is seen as having used it differently....to find what wasn't there before. Which is what I stated.

Those implied powers are what Douglas pulled from his ass.......

Does Dante need to go on ? In this case....no. Nothing Dante could do would make his failure more complete.

A point of your post? "What did the 19th amendment do ? What did Griswold do ? And where are the penumbra's of rights, Douglas called out ?"

Still none too bright? Oh well, there may still be a glimmer of hope fer ya kiddo...

The use of penumbra as a metaphor. Does the previous sentence puzzle you? It should, because regarding usage, that is HOW the word penumbra was used. The context of the word penumbra is USED in the context of a legal decision. Douglas did NOT use the word penumbra in a different context. Ordinarily it would be assumed you would KNOW this. But then again, some of us have a history with your style and actions.

You re-posted something and the inference would be that because you have read it -- you magically are assumed to have comprehended it. The article you re-posted addresses different and changing uses of the metaphor (penumbra), not differing contexts of the metaphor.

What is usually argued and discussed is Douglas' use of the word 'emanations' which give 'life' and 'substance' to the privacy rights. You did not know there was a 'penumbra doctrine' and that would be understandable if you were not posing as more informed and intelligent than you are in reality

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you saying that wasn't the case?

Here is from Hamilton in Federalist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What would life be like without the 1st or 2nd (Adams tried to find out anyway) ?

First, I am sure you only posses a Junior High School Civics Class level understanding of President Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts. more on this later...

now...

"...they were concerned with trying to make a list. They felt that if they missed something...it would be interpreted as not existing and not being able to exist. Hence they only outlined the powers of the Federal Government and restrictions upon it."

-- Hamilton in Federalist 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous."
​

If the Constitution only listed the powers of the federal government and restrictions on it, it would contain no bill of rights. The fact that the 9th amendment in our Bill of Rights states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." is an admission on some level that Hamilton was indeed correct (but would even be dangerous.). You appear to be all over the place. In the op and as the OP Dante included the 9th.

and...

There you go again: Are you saying that wasn't the case? -- What wasn't the case? Here is what you replied to: "Some people said no list was needed, Others said rights were self evident."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What would life be like without the 1st or 2nd (Adams tried to find out anyway) ?

I suppose under Hamilton's beliefs that if there were no bill of rights containing the 1st and 2nd amendments -- when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed it would have ended up in the courts which is what eventually happened.