The 13th and 15th amendments combined say former convicts must be allowed to vote.

[Tennyson]

are you saying that the right to vote doesn't exist?

I'm saying The Constitution doesn't guantee the right to vote.

Says who? Remember, the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Read the 9th amendment. And the 15th amendment *explicitly* cites the right to vote. A right you insist doesn't exist.

Are all conservatives this fucking stupid? Or is just you?

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

No one was under the impression that the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote. Not the Congress or the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

I await with bated breath for you to explain how a how private gun ownership would automatically exist without The Bill of Rights.

You're never read the 9th amendment?

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

You're seriously never read this?

I though you guys were supposed to be 'all about the constitution'. And yet you are clearly clueless about the 9th amendment.

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying The Constitution doesn't guantee the right to vote.

Says who? Remember, the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Read the 9th amendment. And the 15th amendment *explicitly* cites the right to vote. A right you insist doesn't exist.

Are all conservatives this fucking stupid? Or is just you?

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

No one was under the impression that the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote. Not the Congress or the Supreme Court.

Says who? UNITED STATES v. REESE ET AL. cites the right to vote 16 times. But you're telling me that they didn't really mean 'the right to vote'?

 

[Tennyson]

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

I await with bated breath for you to explain how a how private gun ownership would automatically exist without The Bill of Rights.

You're never read the 9th amendment?

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

You're seriously never read this?

I though you guys were supposed to be 'all about the constitution'. And yet you are clearly clueless about the 9th amendment.

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states. The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

 

[Tennyson]

Says who? Remember, the Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Read the 9th amendment. And the 15th amendment *explicitly* cites the right to vote. A right you insist doesn't exist.

Are all conservatives this fucking stupid? Or is just you?

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

No one was under the impression that the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote. Not the Congress or the Supreme Court.

Says who?

The Supreme Court in 1876.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Skylar]

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

I await with bated breath for you to explain how a how private gun ownership would automatically exist without The Bill of Rights.

You're never read the 9th amendment?

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

You're seriously never read this?

I though you guys were supposed to be 'all about the constitution'. And yet you are clearly clueless about the 9th amendment.

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

 

[Skylar]

Clearly this is rhetorical – both questions.

And only an ignorant loon would claim that voting isn’t a fundamental right.

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

No one was under the impression that the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote. Not the Congress or the Supreme Court.

Says who?

The Supreme Court in 1876.

UNITED STATES v. REESE ET AL. cites the right to vote 16 times. But you're telling me that they didn't really mean 'the right to vote'?

Can you quote them saying so?

 

[Tennyson]

I await with bated breath for you to explain how a how private gun ownership would automatically exist without The Bill of Rights.

You're never read the 9th amendment?

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

You're seriously never read this?

I though you guys were supposed to be 'all about the constitution'. And yet you are clearly clueless about the 9th amendment.

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

If civil rights were automatically guaranteed, The Constitution wouldn't exist.

 

[Skylar]

You're never read the 9th amendment?

You're seriously never read this?

I though you guys were supposed to be 'all about the constitution'. And yet you are clearly clueless about the 9th amendment.

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

That quote doesn't say what you do about the 9th amendment (or '11th' at that point), nor indicated that the 9th amendment was about States. Madison was of the view that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. Thus, anything not within the powers listed were outside the federal government's ability to act. As he went into elaborate detail about in his congressional introduction of the Bill of Rights to congress, making it clear that he was talking about those rights of the people.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

There's no real question we're talking about the rights of people here. In fact, virtually every right cited later in the introduction of the Bill of Rights begins with 'The people shall not be constrained', or 'The people shall not be denied' and the like.

Its ludicrously clear that these are individual rights being discussed. Not State powers. So when Madison gets into the 'those rights wich were not placed in that enumeration', he's speaking, unambiguously, of individual rights of the people. Not the States.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Which is why the 9th amendment makes no mention of the States. But references only the rights retained by the people.

 

[Tennyson]

The intent of the Ninth Amendment was to prevent the federal government from interpreting Article I, Section 8 broadly enough to encroach on state's rights.

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

That quote doesn't say what you do about the 9th amendment (or '11th' at that point), nor indicated that the 9th amendment was about States. Madison was of the view that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. Thus, anything not within the powers listed were outside the federal government's ability to act. As he went into elaborate detail about in his congressional introduction of the Bill of Rights to congress, making it clear that he was talking about those rights of the people.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

There's no real question we're talking about the rights of people here. In fact, virtually every right cited later in the introduction of the Bill of Rights begins with 'The people shall not be constrained', or 'The people shall not be denied' and the like.

Its ludicrously clear that these are individual rights being discussed. Not State powers. So when Madison gets into the 'those rights wich were not placed in that enumeration', he's speaking, unambiguously, of individual rights of the people. Not the States.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Which is why the 9th amendment makes no mention of the States. But references only the rights retained by the people.

Madison explicitly referenced the Ninth Amendment and state's rights. This was also manifested in the records of the Virginia ratifying convention.

 

[Tennyson]

Where does The Bill of Rights say that? The Bill of Rights contains all of our civil rights.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say you're this fucking stupid. The constitution and the amendments are the *evidence* that you're this fucking stupid.

As the 15th amendment literally says 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied'....and you insist that voting is not a right.

As for the constitution saying that 'voting is a right', what ever gave you the idea that the constitution has to enumerate a right for it to exist?

No one was under the impression that the Fifteenth Amendment conferred the right to vote. Not the Congress or the Supreme Court.

Says who?

The Supreme Court in 1876.

UNITED STATES v. REESE ET AL. cites the right to vote 16 times. But you're telling me that they didn't really mean 'the right to vote'?

Can you quote them saying so?

United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876):

The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. It prevents the States or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, etc. Before its adoption, this could be done. … Now it cannot. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. … It follows that the Amendment has invested the citizen of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.​

 

[Skylar]

The 9th amendment doesn't even mention the States. Its exclusively about people. You're thinking of the 10th amendment...in relation to State powers. States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists as an assurance against federal government overstep. The Federalists opposed it as unnecessary, as how could the federal government take actions that it had no power to take. Worse, if rights were enumerated, some poor ignorant idiot might assume that those were the ONLY rights. The Anti-federalists argued that no one could be so profoundly stupid as to conclude that enumeration established all rights. The 9th amendment was thus something of a compromise..... to address the concerns of the Federalists on issues of enumeration of rights.

And am I glad the Federalists pushed for the 9th. Because the Anti-Federalists were utterly wrong.....those idiots who insist that enumeration establishes all rights do in fact exist. As our thread demonstrates.

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

That quote doesn't say what you do about the 9th amendment (or '11th' at that point), nor indicated that the 9th amendment was about States. Madison was of the view that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. Thus, anything not within the powers listed were outside the federal government's ability to act. As he went into elaborate detail about in his congressional introduction of the Bill of Rights to congress, making it clear that he was talking about those rights of the people.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

There's no real question we're talking about the rights of people here. In fact, virtually every right cited later in the introduction of the Bill of Rights begins with 'The people shall not be constrained', or 'The people shall not be denied' and the like.

Its ludicrously clear that these are individual rights being discussed. Not State powers. So when Madison gets into the 'those rights wich were not placed in that enumeration', he's speaking, unambiguously, of individual rights of the people. Not the States.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Which is why the 9th amendment makes no mention of the States. But references only the rights retained by the people.

Madison explicitly referenced the Ninth Amendment and state's rights. This was also manifested in the records of the Virginia ratifying convention.

Not in the quote you've offered. And certainly not in his introduction of the Bill of Rights or discussion of the issue of enumeration of rights when introducing the Bill of Rights to Congress. Madison was ludicrously clear that he was talking about the rights of people.

Not the 'rights of States. There's not a single mention of States having any 'rights' in the constitution. Only powers. The only 'rights' referencing in the entire constitution....belong to people.

Exactly as Madison described when introducing the bill of rights.

 

[Tennyson]

The Ninth Amendment regarded the states.

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

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

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

The ambiguous language held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for a year. Madison had to address the Virginia ratifying convention to explain it protected state's rights. He used this same argument against the national bank.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

That quote doesn't say what you do about the 9th amendment (or '11th' at that point), nor indicated that the 9th amendment was about States. Madison was of the view that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. Thus, anything not within the powers listed were outside the federal government's ability to act. As he went into elaborate detail about in his congressional introduction of the Bill of Rights to congress, making it clear that he was talking about those rights of the people.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

There's no real question we're talking about the rights of people here. In fact, virtually every right cited later in the introduction of the Bill of Rights begins with 'The people shall not be constrained', or 'The people shall not be denied' and the like.

Its ludicrously clear that these are individual rights being discussed. Not State powers. So when Madison gets into the 'those rights wich were not placed in that enumeration', he's speaking, unambiguously, of individual rights of the people. Not the States.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Which is why the 9th amendment makes no mention of the States. But references only the rights retained by the people.

Madison explicitly referenced the Ninth Amendment and state's rights. This was also manifested in the records of the Virginia ratifying convention.

Not in the quote you've offered. And certainly not in his introduction of the Bill of Rights or discussion of the issue of enumeration of rights when introducing the Bill of Rights to Congress. Madison was ludicrously clear that he was talking about the rights of people.

Not the 'rights of States. There's not a single mention of States having any 'rights' in the constitution. Only powers. The only 'rights' referencing in the entire constitution....belong to people.

Exactly as Madison described when introducing the bill of rights.

Madison:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States....

State's rights was not a foreign concept to the states.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The voting rights amendments did not confer any rights. They only addressed discrimination based on the subject of each amendment. Any state can eliminate popular voting in a presidential election and choose the electoral votes in the state legislature and this would be constitutionally valid.

That's how federal senators were chosen pre 1913. By the state legislatures. Made a lot of sense.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Do people who aren't American citizens have the same constitutional rights as American citizens?

The first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". That makes it clear that the word "people" means citizens and non-citizens have no rights.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The Supreme Court said that non-citizens have the same civil rights as American citizens.

Where does the constitution say the supreme court has authority to rewrite the constitution (under the fraud of calling it an interpretation).?

You want to change the constitution, go thru the amending process.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Glad to see someone has returned this thread to its intended subject. I'm glad that hillary supports letting criminals vote but she does it solely because she knows they'll vote dem. My point is that the constitution demands it.

 

[Skylar]

No, it didn't. It doesn't even mention the States.

'Retained by the people'. Its about the rights of people. Not the power of States. As States don't have rights, they have powers. Only people have rights.

Can you quote Madison citing the 9th amendment as protecting state's rights in the Virginia Ratifying convention?

Madison used his same speech to the states regarding the intent of the Ninth Amendment as an argument against the national bank. Madison never mentioned individual rights in the minutes:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States, to prohibit as well as to establish Banks, and the circulation of Bank Notes…The explanatory amendments proposed by Congress themselves, at least, would be good authority with them; all these renunciations of power proceeded on a rule of construction, excluding the latitude now contended for. These explanations were the more to be respected, as they had not only been proposed by Congress, but ratified by nearly three-fourths of the states. He read several of the articles proposed, remarking particularly on the 11th. and12th. the former, as guarding against a latitude of interpretation — the latter, as excluding every source of power not within the constitution itself.​

That quote doesn't say what you do about the 9th amendment (or '11th' at that point), nor indicated that the 9th amendment was about States. Madison was of the view that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary as the Constitution was an exhaustive list of powers. Thus, anything not within the powers listed were outside the federal government's ability to act. As he went into elaborate detail about in his congressional introduction of the Bill of Rights to congress, making it clear that he was talking about those rights of the people.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

There's no real question we're talking about the rights of people here. In fact, virtually every right cited later in the introduction of the Bill of Rights begins with 'The people shall not be constrained', or 'The people shall not be denied' and the like.

Its ludicrously clear that these are individual rights being discussed. Not State powers. So when Madison gets into the 'those rights wich were not placed in that enumeration', he's speaking, unambiguously, of individual rights of the people. Not the States.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Which is why the 9th amendment makes no mention of the States. But references only the rights retained by the people.

Madison explicitly referenced the Ninth Amendment and state's rights. This was also manifested in the records of the Virginia ratifying convention.

Not in the quote you've offered. And certainly not in his introduction of the Bill of Rights or discussion of the issue of enumeration of rights when introducing the Bill of Rights to Congress. Madison was ludicrously clear that he was talking about the rights of people.

Not the 'rights of States. There's not a single mention of States having any 'rights' in the constitution. Only powers. The only 'rights' referencing in the entire constitution....belong to people.

Exactly as Madison described when introducing the bill of rights.

Madison:

The proposed Bank would interfere so as indirectly to defeat a State Bank at the same place. It would directly interfere with the rights of the States....

State's rights was not a foreign concept to the states.

Show me a single reference to States having rights in the Constitution.

Here's the entire constitution:

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

Show me.

You can't. There are none. States have powers in the constitution. People have rights. And Madison made it ludicrously clear he was referring to rights of the people when introducing the Bill of Rights.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

A point obviously affirmed by the 9th ammendment itself...which makes no mention of States. But only people:

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

With Madison describuing, right here, why the 9th amendment exists:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

That's why the 9th exists. With those rights.....being the rights of people.