Originally Posted by
Swordsmyth
I'm not fond of states rights, they have their place as a limit on federal power but I regard them with suspicion when they claim to be able to violate individual rights.
The 14thA is not required to incorporate the BoR on the states. (with the possible exception of some or all of the 1stA)
And ^that is the point of the 9th amendment. To say EXACTLY what it is you're trying to say here. That from the beginning of the founding of this Republic, neither the Federal Government nor the individual state governments should assume that just because the constitution doesn't say the federal or state government can do X doesn't mean that it can do X.
A6:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You have to seize a person's body before you can put something into it.
The "seizure" of the woman's body to prevent her from killing a baby is entirely REASONABLE as you yourself have made the case for.
The 4thA only prohibits UNreasonable seizures and vaccine mandates are entirely unreasonable, especially those for experimental vaccines for a disease with a low death rate.
And other people make the preventing millions of deaths from a pandemic is sufficient reason to "seize" someone's body and make them take a vaccine. And in the case of the vaccine mandates there wasn't even a "seizure" in that nobody was physically forced to take a vaccine. I never took a vaccine. I just didn't do the things I was prohibited from doing if I didn't have a vaccine passport. I turned down jobs that wanted proof of vaccination (only a few actually did), I didn't do international travel (had no reason to anyway), and I didn't travel to places like New York (who wants to?) So there's no real application of the seizure clause to what actually happened. You've just read that in there because you don't want to admit that the 9th amendment has a place in the Constitution.
Originally Posted by
Swordsmyth
You're conflating negative rights with positive rights.
https://blog.libertasbella.com/negat...sitive-rights/
The difference between negative vs positive rights is that one requires action while the other requires inaction. Negative rights are the requirements of someone else not to interfere in your ability to obtain something. Positive rights are a requirement of someone else to provide you with something.
You may hear negative rights referred to as “liberties,” and that’s because they are basic human and civil rights stating that no one can interfere with our right to obtain something through trade or bartering.
Positive rights are often called “entitlements” because they are things that someone must provide to us, whether we’ve earned them or not. We don’t have to do anything to obtain positive rights; they’re granted to us.
Saying the government can't make you take a vaccine is a negative right. Saying the government can't prevent you from having an abortion is also a negative right. Saying the government must PAY for your abortion is a positive right. Saying the government must PAY for you to take monoclonal antibodies if you get COVID after taking or not taking a vaccine is a positive right. Nothing about the 9th amendment has anything to do with positive rights. Arguably the general welfare clause is where entitlements come from. (Making sure everyone has free vaccines promotes the general welfare that we don't have millions of people die). Now just because I think the COVID-19 vaccines are BS doesn't change the legal analysis. An "invading virus" is theoretically just as dangerous as an invading army. And going back to the U.S. Civil War both sides "seized" the bodies of young able bodied men through a draft to fight the war. (The South did it first and exempted slave owners from the draft.)
Anyhow, can you cite a single case where the legality of some government entitlement program hinged on the 9th amendment? Just one. I'll wait. Here is a starting point for your search.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...mendment&btnG=
The first case that comes up on that list is Griswald v Connecticut which struck down state laws banning contraception. That case makes use of the 9th amendment as well as the 4th amendment.
The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."[*] We recently referred 485*485 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup. Ct. Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw. U. L. Rev. 216 (1960).
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e. g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
Some conservatives complain about the right to privacy being a right because even though it's clearly implied in the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, it's not enumerated. But that's when the 9th amendment kicks in. And I, for one, full agree that states shouldn't be able to ban contraception. The problem with abortion isn't that the right to privacy is a bad thing. The problem is that at some point in the pregnancy we're talking about two people. A parent's right to privacy doesn't allow for him or her to kill or even sexually abuse a toddler. Kermit Gosnell was legally guilty of murder when he killed babies that survived abortion. But he was morally guilty of murder for the other babies that reached the point of viability but, for whatever reason, didn't survive the abortion procedure. Someone prescribing RU-486 is no more morally guilty of murder than an IVF clinic that disposes of embryos after the parents quit paying the storage fee.
Connect With Us