Ninth Amendment -A safety net that insures our Non- Enumerated rights ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://news.yahoo.com/ninth-amendment-non-enumerated-rights-retained-people-110214945.html Ninth Amendment: Non-Enumerated Rights Retained by Peopletheconstitution
Full Text of the Ninth Amendment

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

Synopsis:

Failure of the Constitution to mention a specific right does not mean that the government can abridge that right, but its protection has to be found elsewhere. Source: U.S. Senate

Explanation:

When the anti-Federalists originally proposed a Bill of Rights, the Federalists responded that listing rights was unnecessary or dangerous, since the enumeration of certain natural or fundamental rights might indicate that others not listed were unprotected. The Ninth Amendment answers this fear by providing a rule of construction: Don’t assume that if a right isn’t listed in the Bill of Rights it isn’t protected by the Constitution. What the Ninth Amendment doesn’t do is to provide a constitutional methodology for identifying which unenumerated rights are constitutionally protected. Debates over this question have inspired some of the most heated constitutional controversies of the 20th century, such as the 1965 Griswold privacy case recognizing a right of married couples to use contraception. In Griswold, Justice Goldberg said the Ninth Amendment protected rights “basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society” even though “that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments.”

Resources:

1. The Library of Congress Constitution Annotated. Contains a detailed history of the amendment, along with past and recent court cases. Here is a link to the section on the Ninth Amendment. Here are explanations from the LOC that are in an online-friendly format from FindLaw.

2. Cornell Legal Information Institute. Includes information from Wex, a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Wex entries are collaboratively created and edited by legal experts.

3. On the Oyez Project, you can read the Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which contains a discussion about the Ninth Amendment and the right to privacy in marital relations. This case includes Justice Goldberg’s statement that, “the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people.” ANOTHER ONE THAT THE BAMSCUM AND CREW IGNORE. --Tyr

[aboutime]

ANOTHER ONE THAT THE BAMSCUM AND CREW IGNORE. --Tyr



Tyr. I find it much easier to simply say BAMSCUM and his CREW...IGNORE the CONSTITUTION.

[fj1200]

ANOTHER ONE THAT THE BAMSCUM AND CREW IGNORE. --Tyr

Example?

[Little-Acorn]

Actually the 9th amendment is part of a "matched set", the 9th and 10th amendments.

The 9th refers to the rights of the people, while the 10th refers to the powers of government.

The 10th says that the Fed government can only have the powers explicitly assigned to it by the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Fed govt can't do it.

But the 9th says that the people can have lots of rights even if they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

These two amendments are put side-by-side in the Constitution, to emphasize how govt's powers and people's rights are treated differently.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually the 9th amendment is part of a "matched set", the 9th and 10th amendments.

The 9th refers to the rights of the people, while the 10th refers to the powers of government.

The 10th says that the Fed government can only have the powers explicitly assigned to it by the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Fed govt can't do it.

But the 9th says that the people can have lots of rights even if they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

These two amendments are put side-by-side in the Constitution, to emphasize how govt's powers and people's rights are treated differently. Right you are. Methinks that fj missed that part amigo. Obama the biggest tyrant president we've ever had and he asked for examples . I dont know but maybe he watches SpongeBob Squarepants all day and misses the daily events ..;)-Tyr

[logroller]

What about who one marries; is that a non enumerated right that can be denied or disparaged by the Feds and/or, via the fourteenth amendment, by the states?

[fj1200]

Right you are. Methinks that fj missed that part amigo. Obama the biggest tyrant president we've ever had and he asked for examples . I dont know but maybe he watches SpongeBob Squarepants all day and misses the daily events ..;)-Tyr

I see you needed someone else to bail you out again. Even though examples were still not provided. :)

[revelarts]

ANOTHER ONE THAT THE BAMSCUM AND CREW IGNORE. --Tyr
Tyr. I find it much easier to simply say BAMSCUM and his CREW...IGNORE the CONSTITUTION.
Actually the 9th amendment is part of a "matched set", the 9th and 10th amendments.
The 9th refers to the rights of the people, while the 10th refers to the powers of government.
The 10th says that the Fed government can only have the powers explicitly assigned to it by the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Fed govt can't do it.
But the 9th says that the people can have lots of rights even if they are not mentioned in the Constitution.
These two amendments are put side-by-side in the Constitution, to emphasize how govt's powers and people's rights are treated differently.


You guys are all really upsets NOW over all of Obama's overreach, treason and unconstitutional activity.
But please Tell me that when the next Republican gets into power that IF they do not STOP, DISMANTLE and divest themselves all the power abuses Obama's "begun"(:rolleyes:).
that you will be JUST as upset.

If your really upset over the constitutional principals. Rather than it just being a Demon-crat doing it.


Frankly I suspect that if a new Republican comes to power and they don't touch gun rights and says that they "won't abuse the dictatorial powers" and are just using them to get the evil Muslims boggie man or "the criminals" or "to defeat China" or "Build up the Country". Many republicans won't have that much problem with it... until a Demon-crats get back into office.
Or until we don't have any rights left to complain about.

Just like 90% of the lefts Anti-war movement disappeared, and 70% the Left Pro constitutional civil libertines disappeared when Obama came to power.
I suspect that a smooth talking republican candidate won't get any push back from some people on the right that are now incensed about the separation of powers and constitutional rights.

all i ask is that you please stick to your principals and not make BS excuses for republicans.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see you needed someone else to bail you out again. Even though examples were still not provided. :) I need to know who set this "examples required rule" first. I see my fellow students ignore it so damn often. Perhaps you can quote from the handbook and give me the noted paragraph, page number and all important information. Be it noted that after my OP I USUALLY GIVE MY VIEWS IN WHICH EXAMPLES MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUPPLIED BUT GIVING THEM ON DEMAND I RARELY DO. YES , I HAVE HONORED YOUR REQUEST A FEW TIMES BEFORE BUT NOW SEE IT IS AN ADDICTION WITH YOU. :laugh: I refuse to feed your habit amigo. It is for your own good. You'll thank me some day. ;) THE LONGEST JOURNEY BEGINS WITH THAT FIRST STEP.... :cool: --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You guys are all really upsets NOW over all of Obama's overreach, treason and unconstitutional activity.
But please Tell me that when the next Republican gets into power that IF they do not STOP, DISMANTLE and divest themselves all the power abuses Obama's "begun"(:rolleyes:).
that you will be JUST as upset.

If your really upset over the constitutional principals. Rather than it just being a Demon-crat doing it.


Frankly I suspect that if a new Republican comes to power and they don't touch gun rights and says that they "won't abuse the dictatorial powers" and are just using them to get the evil Muslims boggie man or "the criminals" or "to defeat China" or "Build up the Country". Many republicans won't have that much problem with it... until a Demon-crats get back into office.
Or until we don't have any rights left to complain about.

Just like 90% of the lefts Anti-war movement disappeared, and 70% the Left Pro constitutional civil libertines disappeared when Obama came to power.
I suspect that a smooth talking republican candidate won't get any push back from some people on the right that are now incensed about the separation of powers and constitutional rights.

all i ask is that you please stick to your principals and not make BS excuses for republicans. Man, when you go down a wrong road you hit it at full speed dontcha? I criticized the living hell out of Bush on immigration, spending and a few other things as well. I just wasn't a member here yet but my old friends here now from that old forum can attest to the truth of that. I am as right as rain about adhering to my principles. I cut nobody any slack including myself where principal stands are concerned. Why bring up Bush if our accusations against the treasonous bamdog are true? When little Timmy got in trouble for stealing candy at the store his cry that Bobby did it last week cut no damn ice.. Rev you are better than this. If you want to castigate them both be my guest but do not accuse me of playing favors because of the party either belongs to. I criticized the living hell out of McCain , Huckabee , etc. That damn big R beside their name doesn't alter my principled views. --Tyr

[fj1200]

I need to know who set this "examples required rule" first. I see my fellow students ignore it so damn often. Perhaps you can quote from the handbook and give me the noted paragraph, page number and all important information. Be it noted that after my OP I USUALLY GIVE MY VIEWS IN WHICH EXAMPLES MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUPPLIED BUT GIVING THEM ON DEMAND I RARELY DO. YES , I HAVE HONORED YOUR REQUEST A FEW TIMES BEFORE BUT NOW SEE IT IS AN ADDICTION WITH YOU. :laugh: I refuse to feed your habit amigo. It is for your own good. You'll thank me some day. ;) THE LONGEST JOURNEY BEGINS WITH THAT FIRST STEP.... :cool: --Tyr

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you again. Examples are certainly not required if you just want to be an unthinking rantical. However, if you want to present a posit and have it be considered then examples are certainly a good idea.

[fj1200]

What about who one marries; is that a non enumerated right that can be denied or disparaged by the Feds and/or, via the fourteenth amendment, by the states?

Interesting, though marriage is a privilege and not a right IMO, which the 14th adequately speaks to, the Constitution is a pretty cool thing when I get to control what it means. ;)

[revelarts]

Man, when you go down a wrong road you hit it at full speed dontcha? I criticized the living hell out of Bush on immigration, spending and a few other things as well. I just wasn't a member here yet but my old friends here now from that old forum can attest to the truth of that. I am as right as rain about adhering to my principles. I cut nobody any slack including myself where principal stands are concerned. Why bring up Bush if our accusations against the treasonous bamdog are true? When little Timmy got in trouble for stealing candy at the store his cry that Bobby did it last week cut no damn ice.. Rev you are better than this. If you want to castigate them both be my guest but do not accuse me of playing favors because of the party either belongs to. I criticized the living hell out of McCain , Huckabee , etc. That damn big R beside their name doesn't alter my principled views. --Tyr

ok great that's all i ask.
But um, Timmy and Bobby are in the same gang seems to me. And saying that Timmy is the worse theft ever to walk the earth when Bobby dug the tunnel under the candy store that Timmy's using, just seems like it's giving Timmy more blame than he deserves alone.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

ok great that's all i ask.
But um, Timmy and Bobby are in the same gang seems to me. And saying that Timmy is the worse theft ever to walk the earth when Bobby dug the tunnel under the candy store that Timmy's using, just seems like it's giving Timmy more blame than he deserves alone. hey, hey, slow down both boys are innocent until proven guilty besides bobby never owned a damn shovel. The black kid next street over that digs worms for fish bait every Sunday owns a big shovel. Better check him out. ;) -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you again. Examples are certainly not required if you just want to be an unthinking rantical. However, if you want to present a posit and have it be considered then examples are certainly a good idea.


Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you again You see that ego will send you down the wrong path every time. You have not confused me at all. I see a demand for examples becoming a regular requirement you submit to me but fail to apply to other member's posts. Now being a smart country boy I believe that is an unfair policy you have decided to pursue. With that judgment in mind I must insist on my refusal to not oblige except when its my voluntary choice of which I was going to do regardless. If need be I can show a great many recent examples of you replying to others posts and nary a request for examples. Of course my doing that is ok because its my choosing to do so. ;) I have made it a firm policy not to let people force me to jump thru hoops. I bez a rantical if you like. Doesn't bother me at all. --Tyr

[fj1200]

You see that ego will send you down the wrong path every time. You have not confused me at all. I see a demand for examples becoming a regular requirement you submit to me but fail to apply to other member's posts. Now being a smart country boy I believe that is an unfair policy you have decided to pursue. With that judgment in mind I must insist on my refusal to not oblige except when its my voluntary choice of which I was going to do regardless. If need be I can show a great many recent examples of you replying to others posts and nary a request for examples. Of course my doing that is ok because its my choosing to do so. ;) I have made it a firm policy not to let people force me to jump thru hoops. I bez a rantical if you like. Doesn't bother me at all. --Tyr

You have quite the wide ranging definition of "demand." :dunno: It may just be me though, when I make an allegation I tend to like to be able to prove it.

But carry on, the echo chamber is safe... until next time. BWAHAHAHAHAHA