The Ninth Amendment

[Sun Devil 92]

Whether that be the case or not, the big disagreement exists around how those rights are identified and made available.

Oh! Now you say the government is in charge of making rights available?

Well...now that you mention it.

I didn't say that.

I said that was the point of disagreement.

Dante, the guy who can't read.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Kennedy thus acknowledges the Framers' understanding of the nature of citizens' rights as expressed in the Ninth Amendment, and the Founding Generation's wisdom and humility as to not presume to know our protected liberties as some 'finite manifestation,' but rather the codification of fundamental principles of freedom designed to safeguard those protected liberties from government excess and overreach, and give citizens license to defend those liberties.

While I appreciate Kennedy's very clear description of how he sees things (and that is, of course, very important, given his position on the SCOTUS), nothing is every really settled.

Hence the reverse of what he says is also true. Laws that didn't exist at one time may be needed depending on the "truths" of the day.

Those liberties also include the liberty to protect ourselves from that which we feel is dangerous.

What is unfortunate is that the court has gotten into the business of trying to decide that on their own.

Again, the Court is not 'deciding anything on its own.'

The people decide, the people petition the courts for a redress of grievances, the people seek relief from government excess and overreach in the courts, invoking the principles of freedom and justice enshrined in the Constitution and its case law intended by the Framers to safeguard citizens' protected liberties.

The people created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court is following the will of the people as expressed in the Founding Document.

I'd be very surprised if the plaintiffs in Griswold called out that their "right to privacy" was being violated.

I've been wrong before.

But, if they didn't, your statement is crap.

The people never voted on a right to privacy. One was never discussed. It just suddenly stepped out of the shadows.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Actually I did, I'm just wondering what mental masterbation dainty is engaging in. The Bill of Rights enumerate limitations on what GOVERNMENT can do as regards the PEOPLE. That's it. It doesn't GRANT ANYTHING. It merely states what EXISTS.

This would indicate you failed to comprehend the linked article.

No, I understood the article quite well. I also understand that it is the desire of the author to use it to enumerate "rights" that are not 'natural' Rights. I disagree with the methodology. However, ANYTHING that reigns in government control of the People I am all for.

In which case we’re all in agreement: the Constitution recognizes citizens’ rights both expressed and implied, just as the Constitution recognizes powers of government both expressed and implied – as neither the rights of citizens nor the authority of government are ‘finite,’ where Constitutional jurisprudence as determined by the courts places limits on government to restrict citizens’ rights that although inalienable, are not absolute.

Consequently there in fact exists a right to privacy, a right to marry, a right to vote, and a right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to right of self-defense – rights not ‘enumerated’ in the Constitution, but rights that exist nonetheless, consistent with the intent of the Ninth Amendment.

Whether that be the case or not, the big disagreement exists around how those rights are identified and made available.

The SCOTUS "finding" them hiding in the shaddows and then using them to justify certain judicial positions is not something many of us agree with.

Nobody found a womens right to vote and said it had to be so.....

It recognized and accepted by the people.

To think they can suddenly show themselves and be enforced is simply horsecrap.

You disagree with it because it conflicts with your subjective, errant partisan dogma, not for reasons based on the Constitution and its case law.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, the right to vote, and the right to self-defense have always existed, neither 'found' nor 'created' by the Supreme Court, where the people have always acknowledged these rights, and used these rights to defend their protected liberties from government excess and overreach, with the Supreme Court confirming the rights of the people in the context of the Constitution and its case law, rights neither 'enumerated' or 'finite.'

Please tell me, prior to Justice Douglas, where the "right to privacy" was ever contested.

If people have always acknowledged these rights....then why are they not called out in the Constitution ?

And why did it take an amendment to get women the right to vote in federal elections ?

Seems your story is leaking like the Titanic.

The so-called rights you call out are simply things you feel are just (while I might happen to agree they are just...I don't agree that they just show up).

I blame the far right more than the far left for the problems we have today (with the exception of Earl Warren) in our stupidly confused SCOTUS.

There is no common sense in what goes on anymore.

And shove the dogma statement....you have no idea of what my ideology is.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Kennedy thus acknowledges the Framers' understanding of the nature of citizens' rights as expressed in the Ninth Amendment, and the Founding Generation's wisdom and humility as to not presume to know our protected liberties as some 'finite manifestation,' but rather the codification of fundamental principles of freedom designed to safeguard those protected liberties from government excess and overreach, and give citizens license to defend those liberties.

While I appreciate Kennedy's very clear description of how he sees things (and that is, of course, very important, given his position on the SCOTUS), nothing is every really settled.

Hence the reverse of what he says is also true. Laws that didn't exist at one time may be needed depending on the "truths" of the day.

Those liberties also include the liberty to protect ourselves from that which we feel is dangerous.

What is unfortunate is that the court has gotten into the business of trying to decide that on their own.

On their own? not true

The Court is always ASKED to step in

Oh yes...and they always do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is it y'all don't get?

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

 

[westwall]

What is it y'all don't get?

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Just cut to the chase and tell us all of the rights you feel the 9th grants.

Obviously you didn't bother to read the linked article:

'Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.'

Actually I did, I'm just wondering what mental masterbation dainty is engaging in. The Bill of Rights enumerate limitations on what GOVERNMENT can do as regards the PEOPLE. That's it. It doesn't GRANT ANYTHING. It merely states what EXISTS.

Oh, but don't you see.....

They only exist in the asses of the SCOTUS.

So when it is convenient, they reach behind themselves and pull them out.

That is what interpreting the constitution means...doncha know ?

That's why we have so-called Constitutional scholars like Obama......or Ted Cruz.

That is simply a code word for "I know how to twist things to get what I want".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What is it y'all don't get?

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

He chooses only to argue those points that are still open to contention. When something is rammed up his backside (as in argument...not his boyfriend), he takes a Tylenol and convinces himself that he's still right.

As to the rest of this argument, I've heard it 100 times.

I agree with the legality of abortion. But I don't agree to the concept of "reproductive rights". That's a load of crap.

And the story behind the effort to reach this decision is beyond sad.

 

[westwall]

What is it y'all don't get?

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

He chooses only to argue those points that are still open to contention. When something is rammed up his backside (as in argument...not his boyfriend), he takes a Tylenol and convinces himself that he's still right.

As to the rest of this argument, I've heard it 100 times.

I agree with the legality of abortion. But I don't agree to the concept of "reproductive rights". That's a load of crap.

And the story behind the effort to reach this decision is beyond sad.

Yes. I too agree with the legality. I don't like it but I also realize that the government that passes a law that says you can't have an abortion, has also given itself the ability to say you MUST have an abortion. I always come down on the side of individual rights over that of the State.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is beyond me that anyone can argue that marriage is a right.

Marriage is an institution that brings with it certain legal protections and priveledges.

If people want to protect those priveledges (such as tax filings....) they have to do things accordingly.

That still does not make marriage a right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

He chooses only to argue those points that are still open to contention. When something is rammed up his backside (as in argument...not his boyfriend), he takes a Tylenol and convinces himself that he's still right.

As to the rest of this argument, I've heard it 100 times.

I agree with the legality of abortion. But I don't agree to the concept of "reproductive rights". That's a load of crap.

And the story behind the effort to reach this decision is beyond sad.

Yes. I too agree with the legality. I don't like it but I also realize that the government that passes a law that says you can't have an abortion, has also given itself the ability to say you MUST have an abortion. I always come down on the side of individual rights over that of the State.

I should be clear...I want abortion to be legal.

But, to your point, "the government" is the federal government.

It was the kind of abra-cada-bra "right creation" the founders sought to avoid.

The "rights" found in the Bill of Rights are generally negative rights. Things the federal government could not take from you.

The idea that the federal government is going to suddenly start finding rights you had but didn't have is simply stupid.

I am sure the women who tried to vote and couldn't before 1913 were all over them. Funny thing was...nobody acknowledged them until they were codified using a specific process.

Now...the process is...reach up your rear and Viola !!!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why you don't answer the question.

It was asked to you first.

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

He chooses only to argue those points that are still open to contention. When something is rammed up his backside (as in argument...not his boyfriend), he takes a Tylenol and convinces himself that he's still right.

As to the rest of this argument, I've heard it 100 times.

I agree with the legality of abortion. But I don't agree to the concept of "reproductive rights". That's a load of crap.

And the story behind the effort to reach this decision is beyond sad.

Yes. I too agree with the legality. I don't like it but I also realize that the government that passes a law that says you can't have an abortion, has also given itself the ability to say you MUST have an abortion. I always come down on the side of individual rights over that of the State.

And, of course, anyone who thinks differently than CJ and Dante is "misguided"...after all the SCOTUS (in this case Kennedy) said so.

Here is what Douglas supposedly said.....

At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
Read more at William O. Douglas Quotes at BrainyQuote

I find that astounding (if he really said it). I wasn't even aware of it....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Wiki (yes, I know).....has a comment...:

In general, legal scholars have noted that Douglas' judicial style was unusual in that he did not attempt to elaborate justifications for his judicial positions on the basis of text, history, or precedent. Douglas was known for writing short, pithy opinions which relied on philosophical insights, observations about current politics, and literature, as much as more conventional "judicial" sources. Ultimately, he believed that a judge's role was "not neutral." "The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people...."[14]

I recall this and only bring it up because of the statement around no attempt to justify his decisions.

I mean...com'on.....

I wonder if Douglas or any of his "enlightened" partners would see Roberts screw up on Obamacare as taking government off the backs of the people ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Whether that be the case or not, the big disagreement exists around how those rights are identified and made available.

The SCOTUS "finding" them hiding in the shaddows and then using them to justify certain judicial positions is not something many of us agree with.

Nobody found a womens right to vote and said it had to be so.....

It recognized and accepted by the people.

To think they can suddenly show themselves and be enforced is simply horsecrap.

You disagree with it because it conflicts with your subjective, errant partisan dogma, not for reasons based on the Constitution and its case law.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, the right to vote, and the right to self-defense have always existed, neither 'found' nor 'created' by the Supreme Court, where the people have always acknowledged these rights, and used these rights to defend their protected liberties from government excess and overreach, with the Supreme Court confirming the rights of the people in the context of the Constitution and its case law, rights neither 'enumerated' or 'finite.'

the ideological dogma of the right wing has them disregarding science and common sense

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey goofball. In your mind, how was the question I asked first "What rights did the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution think existed?" possibly asked first of me? maybe with westwall's help can answer that one

Post #2:

"Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?"

So...you see....you didn't ask it first.

I am sure your high school reading teacher can explain it to you.

Moron.

Dante is the dictionary definition of 'pseudo-intellectual'. I have yet to see him back up an assertion, such as this one, with anything credible.

He chooses only to argue those points that are still open to contention. When something is rammed up his backside (as in argument...not his boyfriend), he takes a Tylenol and convinces himself that he's still right.

As to the rest of this argument, I've heard it 100 times.

I agree with the legality of abortion. But I don't agree to the concept of "reproductive rights". That's a load of crap.

And the story behind the effort to reach this decision is beyond sad.

Yes. I too agree with the legality. I don't like it but I also realize that the government that passes a law that says you can't have an abortion, has also given itself the ability to say you MUST have an abortion. I always come down on the side of individual rights over that of the State.

And, of course, anyone who thinks differently than CJ and Dante is "misguided"...after all the SCOTUS (in this case Kennedy) said so.

Here is what Douglas supposedly said.....

At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
Read more at William O. Douglas Quotes at BrainyQuote

I find that astounding (if he really said it). I wasn't even aware of it....

more ideological bs

why not as an honest example quote Kennedy and Scalia and all of their crazy statements that are challenged by common sense? Play dueling quotes with yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Whether that be the case or not, the big disagreement exists around how those rights are identified and made available.

Oh! Now you say the government is in charge of making rights available?

Well...now that you mention it.

I didn't say that.

I said that was the point of disagreement.

Dante, the guy who can't read.

and in a fuller context you've been arguing that the government gets to say whether there is a right to privacy that covers abortions, and covers marriage between same sex couples...you want the government to say whether those rights exist and are available

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Kennedy thus acknowledges the Framers' understanding of the nature of citizens' rights as expressed in the Ninth Amendment, and the Founding Generation's wisdom and humility as to not presume to know our protected liberties as some 'finite manifestation,' but rather the codification of fundamental principles of freedom designed to safeguard those protected liberties from government excess and overreach, and give citizens license to defend those liberties.

While I appreciate Kennedy's very clear description of how he sees things (and that is, of course, very important, given his position on the SCOTUS), nothing is every really settled.

Hence the reverse of what he says is also true. Laws that didn't exist at one time may be needed depending on the "truths" of the day.

Those liberties also include the liberty to protect ourselves from that which we feel is dangerous.

What is unfortunate is that the court has gotten into the business of trying to decide that on their own.

Again, the Court is not 'deciding anything on its own.'

The people decide, the people petition the courts for a redress of grievances, the people seek relief from government excess and overreach in the courts, invoking the principles of freedom and justice enshrined in the Constitution and its case law intended by the Framers to safeguard citizens' protected liberties.

The people created the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court is following the will of the people as expressed in the Founding Document.

I'd be very surprised if the plaintiffs in Griswold called out that their "right to privacy" was being violated.

I've been wrong before.

But, if they didn't, your statement is crap.

The people never voted on a right to privacy. One was never discussed. It just suddenly stepped out of the shadows.

Just a bit of history because some people are always claiming the Court wanted to legislate here...

Coming to the merits, we are met with a wide range of questions that implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Overtones of some arguments suggest that Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, should be our guide. But we decline that invitation. We do not sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, need, and propriety of laws that touch economic problems, business affairs, or social conditions. This law, however, operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation.

The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.

Griswold vs Connecticut​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please tell me, prior to Justice Douglas, where the "right to privacy" was ever contested.

If people have always acknowledged these rights....then why are they not called out in the Constitution ?

The 9th Amendment
The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Whether that be the case or not, the big disagreement exists around how those rights are identified and made available.

The SCOTUS "finding" them hiding in the shaddows and then using them to justify certain judicial positions is not something many of us agree with.

Nobody found a womens right to vote and said it had to be so.....

It recognized and accepted by the people.

To think they can suddenly show themselves and be enforced is simply horsecrap.

You disagree with it because it conflicts with your subjective, errant partisan dogma, not for reasons based on the Constitution and its case law.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, the right to vote, and the right to self-defense have always existed, neither 'found' nor 'created' by the Supreme Court, where the people have always acknowledged these rights, and used these rights to defend their protected liberties from government excess and overreach, with the Supreme Court confirming the rights of the people in the context of the Constitution and its case law, rights neither 'enumerated' or 'finite.'

the ideological dogma of the right wing has them disregarding science and common sense

I guess is didn't realize you were CJ's lapdog.

Nice to know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Please tell me, prior to Justice Douglas, where the "right to privacy" was ever contested.

If people have always acknowledged these rights....then why are they not called out in the Constitution ?

The 9th Amendment
The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Cute.....

Suvey says.....BULLCRAP....

Awwwwww.......