The Ninth Amendment

[Dante]

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.

Tom Q: How malleable do you think our Constitution should be?

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

The question that should be asked by those claim to know what the people who framed and ratified the US Constitution thought about rights. By NOT listing rights did they not infer a malleability? They put in the document tat there are rights retained by the people that have not been specifically enumerated.
---

Tom Statement: People who prattle on about rights seem to think such abstractions just fell out of the sky. They didn't.

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

Abstractions/ideas fall out of the heads of men
---

Tom Statement: 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.

Dante counter Statement: 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.

The rights/ideas/abstractions existed before the revolution.
---

Tom Q: Just what rights are they, to which you're you attempting to allude?

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

Dante alludes to no rights, he asks what rights were the framers and ratifiers alluding to. Dante has found people who prattle on about how our nation was born are usually mistaken.

 

[Dante]

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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.'

 

[Dante]

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

Dante does not believe the Constitution grants rights. He believes what the Constitution says -- it enumerated a few rights while insisting others existed that were retained by the people that were not enumerated

 

[Dante]

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.'

 

[westwall]

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?

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This would indicate you failed to comprehend the linked article.

 

[Dante]

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.

poor olde westwall after all these days relegated to masturbating to Dante's posts?

Dante never said the 9th or any other part of the Constitution GRANTS rights. As a matter of fact he stated this fact on a post

Some people have conflated the truth that the Constitution puts limitations on the role of the branches of government, with the idea that the amendments -- the bill of rights -- enumerates the limitations placed on what the government can do to the citizens.

What is obviously dumb is that this opens the door to saying the government can do to citizens what is NOT enumerated as a limitation.

The first group of amendments listed a few of the rights the people had that the government should not violate. The 9th stated there were rights not enumerated that the people held that should not be violated.

Was one of these rights the right to privacy? What were the other rights? It was the framers and the people that ratified the Constitution who insisted there exists rights outside of the bill of rights

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

 

[Dante]

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.

here we go with natural rights

even your own ally conceded rights are abstractions. he said the abstractions did not just fall out of the sky. something to contemplate when you speak of abstractions being natural as if they have fallen out of the sky from some Great White father in the beyond

all absolutists are absolutely insane

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

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.

The very process we now pursue in the selection and confirmation of SCOTUS judges is a testament to the lack of alignment we have as a society (or societies as the case may be).

 

[Dante]

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?

 

[Dante]

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.'

 

[Billo_Really]

There's a lot of people at this board who bear false witnesses.

In fact, many people in this very own threa..........um............uh.............

.....oh, you said "amendment".

Sorry, my bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.