A Primer In Constitutional Law And Democratic Government capecodtoday.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
‘Teabaggers’ Spin the Tenth freepress.com Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Mark Joseph: The Moral Equivalent of Our Founding Fathers Huffington Post Take a look at an interesting article we found.
June 23, 2009
Interpreting the Constitution is a favorite American pastime.
Continuing our discussion of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, we come to the Ninth Amendment—whose vague language has filled libraries with thousands of pages trying to decipher it.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It seems to be saying that just because we haven't covered you in the first Eight Amendments, it doesn't mean your rights can't be violated.
In “The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment,” Kurt T. Lash uncovers evidence that this forgotten amendment has played a remarkable role in almost every significant constitutional debate in American history, including the controversy over the Alien and Sedition Acts, slavery and the constitutionality of the New Deal.
And he has an original theory of the Ninth's purpose emphasizing the political powers of 'We the People' and rediscovering the amendment as a lynchpin of practically everyone that's disenfranchised in this country.
Which seems important today as the Supreme Court considers whether states have the right to authorize medicinal use of marijuana, decide on national laws like the Patriot Act and ponder anything that infringes on anyone whose rights aren't enumerated in the Constitution.
With the Ninth Amendment having such an advocate, I find my job here complete.
Which is good because I've found the less I write on such complex subjects, the less likely I will get in trouble.
Fortunately, my learned body of legal experts are ready to jump in with opinions of their own.
Thomas Jefferson whitehouse.gov Take a look at an interesting article we found.
United States Constitution law.cornell Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Bill of Rights archives.gov/ Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Ah, the Glorious Ninth, a certain meaningful check on Federal Power and a significant guarantee o...
Jun. 23, 2009 10:03 PM
Why did our Founding Fathers write the Ninth Amendment?
0% 55% 20% 10% 0% 15%
simply to my simple mind, the ninth is not to limit the number of rights we (the people) may obtain or use. be it 10 or 1000.
good morning eye's!
It's like the 9th is a "cover-your-tushy" type statement. I read it as "just because we haven't specified a right in the Constitution does not mean it doesn't exist". If nothing else, it could be renamed the "Gives Congress Something To Do Amendment."
Half full is also half empty; the rules of exclusion leave many openings for sunlight to illuminate the underlying motives.
I'm definitely not awake enough to tackle this topic, but don't hold that against me it would be unconstitutional.
the personal right to choose to be individuals apart from governing, can not be named or numbered, therefore enumeration (noun) is limitless(without boundary). googleplexed !freedoms of choice, not a freedom from (which would be enumerate(transitive verb), limited to x#).
Because the all powers not given to the US government were reseved by the states it was necessary to clearify that the states could not imposs tyrany. Also the impossions that Gowernments will dream up needed to be covered. some of the recent ones like quartering solders were explicitly covered. I think if we wrote this document today we would not cover quartering of solders but would cover internet issues.
If you get too deep into the 9th, then what you realize you're talking about is the Enlightenment's philosophy of Natural Rights: i.e. we've all got 'em, so whadda we DO with 'em? This 9th Amendment was the Founding Dudes' way of pointing out that there are more Natural Rights available, and just because they aren't positively enumerated in the Constitution doesn't deny their existence.
Natural Rights. They rock. But it's far too early in the day, and I haven't even had my second tea yet. But once I have and all the other appurtenances of the day are dealt with, then I shall return to this discussion with my Hobbesian Leviathan prominently displayed.
Which, of course, brings up that nettlesome discussion about manners...
J.I. Pardon me, but I believe you should also 'beg pardon to interject,and correct. Your learned opinion is valuable,and the insight is well taken. Thank you,again. Respectfully, RoadYacht.
It seems to be saying that you can exercise whatever rights you chose, whatever they may be if not previously covered. But that can't be -- sick minds come up with some really strange "rights".
After I read it, I thought it was a kind of disclaimer for lawyers.
But it's still too darn hot to think, so that's probably why I thought that.
Probably.
It seems after the first five, the amendments diminished in importance but somehow they need to get to Ten. I can almost hear the dialogue, "What is this gobbledy gook Alexander?" "How do I know James, but if we make it confusing enough people will think we're geniuses." "So...have any ideas for the tenth?"
We must be careful about thinking too hard about this one . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE
i think each and every one of the amendments (as was the constitution) were well thought out and extremely far sighted, so that no one would ever have to suffer from the tryanny of an oppressive government, again. never. when we discount history..................
what time are cocktails?
Anytime you want. Thanks Michael for the diversion.
And this amendment has even scared off the lawyers. Where are they when we need them?
I am almost positive that it is there for a very good reason. Or at least I'd like to think so; although I do enjoy a good sense of humor.
"Let me sleep on it and I'll give my answer in the morning"
in the words of T.H. White, EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY
Okay, I think I've got it.
I think it means that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it.... then you will definitely need a good lawyer.
Or, if a tree falls in the forest, and you hear it but you don't report the sound to the proper authorities right away -- then you're guilty of arboreal abuse and you're bound for the big house, my boy.
Hang down your head, Tom Dooley...
Here's the music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoBLGE2cCdU&feature=related
why if it wasn't for the 9th, I'd be doing the perp walk for that noisy tree....
that no one saw...
It's a complicated world we live in, Peter. Just plead the 9th and you'll be okay.
Ah, the Glorious Ninth, a certain meaningful check on Federal Power and a significant guarantee of individual liberty. Just because the right wasn't mentioned, doesn't make it not a right, and vice versa. The framers obviously read their Rousseau, Machavelli, Plato, and Hobbes & all the others. The Ninth is at its least the coda of the Preamble; at its most, it is like any other document that addresses rules and laws to live by: all a matter of interpretation.
more on the honor rollI wonder, sometimes, if I weren't born without the suspicion and cynicism chromosomes that seem to influence almost everybody else.
When it occurs to me to think about The Constitution and The Bill of Rights, usually with the encouragement of our host, I view them as protections and not threats.
I do not worry about my inalienable rights being abused as much as I worry about my people being kept safe. I would not rather bury loved ones than have my phone calls or e-mails listened to or read.
When it comes to racial profiling, my only concern is that not enough of it is being done.
Even when, once or twice, I found myself slightly crosswise with the authorities, I was treated fairly and not completely without respect.
Finally, I am grateful to have paid just enough attention in ninth grade civics not to have asked for, as did my friend, Ray, the protection afforded by the fifth commandment.
"I do not worry about my inalienable rights being abused as much as I worry about my people being kept safe. I would not rather bury loved ones than have my phone calls or e-mails listened to or read."
Ah! But, my friend, they are so frequently directly connected. Throughout the history of dictatorships and tyrannies, many a widow and orphan have buried their loved ones because of a tapped phone or intercepted letter. In the immortal words of Ben Franklin:
"He who sacrifices his fundamental liberty in exchange for a little temporary safety shall have neither liberty nor safety."
Stoney, If I didn't have faith in the intentions of our nation's founders as well as in the ability of the citizens of this nation to keep their eye on the prize and our founders dreams alive through their collective efforts and effective use of the ballot... I may have argued. But I do, so I won't, and I am grateful for the protections I have. We have the eyes and ears of our nation as well the rest of the world to keep us in line; all very eager to point out any abuse. I believe it is the job of "we the people" to take action to ensure that we remain protected, and not threatened by our own government. Peace out....
There is no such thing as the giving of additional rights. No document is capable of such an endowment. Rights are fundamental, coming from nature (God, Mother Earth, what have you?) and we either have them or we don't. The Constitution does not give anyone any rights. It acknowledges the existence of rights we already have and guarantees their protection.
Admission of fallability is not common in statesmen but I believe the founding fathers used the Ninth Amendment as a way of saying "We probably left a few things out here but don't imagine that means you can tample all over these unmentioned rights."
The one exception to this rule is that, after forfeiting certain rights through criminality, a prisoner can have those rights restored to him upon his release. That is the only case I can see of being given a right.
Interestingly, the Constitution recognizes that political power can often be the antithesis of individual rights. And the framers of the document were well aware that future generations were as likely to need protection from their own government as from foreign powers. Many feel that one of the Constitution's functions is to limit the president's power. Technically, the opposite is true. The Constitution gives the president the only powers he was ever meant to have. If the Constitution does not state that the president has a certain power, then he does not have it. This is why I have such a low opinion of Andrew Jackson. He was the first president to violate this charge by increasing executive powers beyond Constitutional specifications and our leaders have not stopped since.
At any rate, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the Constitution views individual rights as very different from governmental power. In the case of rights, that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted. In the case of powers, the opposite is true.
Stoney, I loved reading what your said, above. I've got tears in my eyes. It's just so good to read something positive. In the midst of all the negativity, I find your post and it touched me deeply. Thank you.