Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: The 9thA, what's it good for?

  1. #1

    The 9thA, what's it good for?

    The idea was noble but the practical application would be a big government bonanza for the left.

    So far we have avoided the issue because nobody had the temerity to use it to pull "rights" out of thin air but I predict it won't be long before the left does exactly that.

    Repeal the 9thA.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The idea was noble but the practical application would be a big government bonanza for the left.

    So far we have avoided the issue because nobody had the temerity to use it to pull "rights" out of thin air but I predict it won't be long before the left does exactly that.

    Repeal the 9thA.
    It happened 57 years ago when several Justices relied on the 9th Amendment in striking down Connecticut's ban on contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. I agree the amendment could be misused by an activist Court majority, but unless you're prepared to argue that there are no unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution it's still good to have the amendment around. It sure as hell beats relying on "penumbras, formed by emanations" as a rationale.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It happened 57 years ago when several Justices relied on the 9th Amendment in striking down Connecticut's ban on contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut. I agree the amendment could be misused by an activist Court majority, but unless you're prepared to argue that there are no unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution it's still good to have the amendment around. It sure as hell beats relying on "penumbras, formed by emanations" as a rationale.
    It needs to be designated as commentary with no force at the least.
    It should have been designated that in the first place.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    The way I see it is it states any rights go to the people . I view that as citizens personally and individually not courts or govt services . That means it is meant only not to expand any govt or force of govt . Letists are only interested in expanded govt and goods and services provided by that , what is taken from others.
    Do something Danke

  6. #5
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    The only people who could possibly object to that are power-hungry partisans trying to deny rights to other partisans.

    If only governments paid attention to it, the federal code might not fill up entire rooms.
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    The way I see it is it states any rights go to the people . I view that as citizens personally and individually not courts or govt services . That means it is meant only not to expand any govt or force of govt . Letists are only interested in expanded govt and goods and services provided by that , what is taken from others.
    Sure, that's the intent.
    But Osan just tried to pull a right to abortion out of it. (that's what prompted this thread)
    The left will most certainly try to use it to establish O'Bummer's "Positive Rights" to food, housing, healthcare, and anything else that enters their minds next time they get a SCOTUS majority.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Slavery should have been abolished under the 9th. Just saying.
    My Medical Records are Private

    "If a man says he'll get something done, then he'll get it done. You don't need to keep reminding him every 6 months." --phill4paul

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by cjm View Post
    Slavery should have been abolished under the 9th. Just saying.
    Slavery should have been abolished by its own special amendment with a set date to allow the slave states to unwind it peacefully and in an organized fashion.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Sure, that's the intent.
    But Osan just tried to pull a right to abortion out of it. (that's what prompted this thread)
    The left will most certainly try to use it to establish O'Bummer's "Positive Rights" to food, housing, healthcare, and anything else that enters their minds next time they get a SCOTUS majority.
    Do you think the states should be able to enforce vaccine mandates? Because I don't. That's one of those rights that should belong to "the people." The "right" of the government to establish universal healthcare came, according to Justice Roberts, from its taxing power. In other words if someone wants to give the government power to do something, even a so called "conservative" Justice can come up with a reason. Abortion, after a certain point in pregnancy, becomes a conflict of rights between two people. I'm not sure what that point is. It's not conception. Sorry but an embryo that doesn't have a beating heart, has no brain cells, does not feel pain etc is not a human. If it is then shut down all of the in vitro fertilization clinic NOW because their keeping baby humans frozen and most will be flushed. Past the 6th month? That baby might live outside the womb given the chance and anyone trying to kill it is just a sicko. Mama doesn't want to carry it any longer? Then induce an early labor, try to save the premis' life, and if it doesn't make then it wasn't meant to be. Somewhere between the first month and the sixth month is where things are dicey. (Really the 5th month because a five gestation month baby has now survived). Because of this conflict, this is something that should be handled by the state legislatures. Sometimes there's no conflict between individuals, just a conflict between a stupid state legislature and individuals. Such was the case with Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) which struck down a law that banned unmarried couples from having contraception. That could have been argued under "equal protection" of the 14th amendment as well, but it was just a dumb law with no "rational basis."
    Last edited by jmdrake; 07-06-2022 at 06:00 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by cjm View Post
    Slavery should have been abolished under the 9th. Just saying.
    Kind of hard to do that when Article IV section 2 explicitly protected slavery.

    Clause 3 Slavery
    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Incidentally, that's why Dred Scott was wrongly decided. Dred did not "escape" but rather he was taken by his master from a slave state to a free state.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    It was good for convincing some states to ratify the Constitution.

    For whatever that turned out to be worth.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Do you think the states should be able to enforce vaccine mandates? Because I don't. That's one of those rights that should belong to "the people."
    4thA:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

    A vaccine mandate is an unreasonable seizure of your person.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    4thA:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

    A vaccine mandate is an unreasonable seizure of your person.
    Yeah.....but that requires 14th amendment and the use of the non-delegation doctrine to abrogate the states rights that you are so fond of.

    Edit: And no court has up to this point equated a vaccine to a "seizure." A vaccine is putting something in to someone. Seizure is taking something "out." If we're going to be that creative then a pro abortion jurist can say "A woman's body is seized by the government if she can't have an abortion because they are making her act as an incubator for a baby that she doesn't want."
    Last edited by jmdrake; 07-07-2022 at 04:37 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah.....but that requires 14th amendment and the use of the non-delegation doctrine to abrogate the states rights that you are so fond of.

    Edit: And no court has up to this point equated a vaccine to a "seizure." A vaccine is putting something in to someone. Seizure is taking something "out." If we're going to be that creative then a pro abortion jurist can say "A woman's body is seized by the government if she can't have an abortion because they are making her act as an incubator for a baby that she doesn't want."
    He figures that won't happen if only he can have the right dictator. And as we saw when Trump was doing his schtick, even if the right dictator does the wrong things he'll deny it's happening.
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah.....but that requires 14th amendment and the use of the non-delegation doctrine to abrogate the states rights that you are so fond of.

    I don't think it does. Article VI of the Constitution says, "Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

    And the words "shall not be violated" in the 4th Amendment (much like "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd) are universal in their scope. Contrast this with the 2st Amendment which specifies, "Congress shall make no law...."

    A state legislator who supports a law violating a person's right to be secure in their person against unreasonable search and seizure would be violating their oath to uphold the US Constitution.
    There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency, but a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
    Ron Paul
    Congressional Record (March 13, 2001)

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I don't think it does. Article VI of the Constitution says, "Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

    And the words "shall not be violated" in the 4th Amendment (much like "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd) are universal in their scope. Contrast this with the 2st Amendment which specifies, "Congress shall make no law...."

    A state legislator who supports a law violating a person's right to be secure in their person against unreasonable search and seizure would be violating their oath to uphold the US Constitution.
    But does the Constiutional provision regarding searches apply to the States? The 5th Amendment, like the 4th, doesn't refer to Congress, yet the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the 5th's takings provision didn't apply to the States. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that when the Constitution prohibits the States from doing something it does do explicitly -- e.g., "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." Since there's no similar explicit language in the Bill of Rights, he held that the 5th applied only to the federal government. In addition, he noted that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was precipitated by concerns over the possible abuse of the powers granred to the federal government:

    But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
    So you still need the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible Man View Post
    I don't think it does. Article VI of the Constitution says, "Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

    And the words "shall not be violated" in the 4th Amendment (much like "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd) are universal in their scope. Contrast this with the 2st Amendment which specifies, "Congress shall make no law...."

    A state legislator who supports a law violating a person's right to be secure in their person against unreasonable search and seizure would be violating their oath to uphold the US Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But does the Constiutional provision regarding searches apply to the States? The 5th Amendment, like the 4th, doesn't refer to Congress, yet the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the 5th's takings provision didn't apply to the States. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that when the Constitution prohibits the States from doing something it does do explicitly -- e.g., "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." Since there's no similar explicit language in the Bill of Rights, he held that the 5th applied only to the federal government. In addition, he noted that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was precipitated by concerns over the possible abuse of the powers granred to the federal government:



    So you still need the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine.
    Sure. Multiple ways to approach the subject that states shouldn't be able to do whatever it is they want to their citizens. And that's the real key want what @Swordsmyth is having a hard time grasping. There is BOUND to be tension between so called "states rights" and individual rights. But the best use of states rights is in defense of individual rights. The individual right to drink alcohol could not be infringed without a constitutional amendment. Everybody understood that at the beginning which is why the temperance movement had to push for ratification of an amendment to ban alcohol nationwide as opposed to simply passing a federal law banning alcohol. But individual states banned alcohol and there's nothing but cultural and political pressure from stopping that now. States can choose to ban or not ban marijuana. The federal government, unconstitutionally IMO, still bans it. Or course a vaccine is the state pushing you to take something in your body rather than preventing you from taking it. But bans on hydroxycholriquine and ivermectin usage are analogous to bans on alcohol, marijuana and other drugs and even RU486, an abortion drug.

    So, bottom line. Rather than trying to throw away a useful tool like the 9th amendment, use it where it makes sense. The issue with abortion rights isn't simply that it's not enumerated in the constitution. It's that, at some point, we're talking about two individuals and both have inalienable God given rights that should be protected. It's the same problem with slavery. Yes some a$$wipes wrote protection for slavery in U.S. constitution. Some more a$$wipes wrote protection for slavery in the Confederate constitution. The civil war, whether you want to argue if it was about slavery or not, ended the question of whether states can grant the right to one individual to enslave another. At that time the question of the humanity of non-whites became in dispute. (Initially slavery was mostly intra-racial as Thomas Sowell pointed out.)

    Personally, on the abortion issue, I'm not interested in another civil war. I think we can calmly and gently talk this through. I know I may be being overly optimistic. Then again @dannno posted that video from Louder with Crowder where about 80% of the pro choice people he talked to were able to agree that SOME restriction on abortion makes sense.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yeah.....but that requires 14th amendment and the use of the non-delegation doctrine to abrogate the states rights that you are so fond of.
    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)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Edit: And no court has up to this point equated a vaccine to a "seizure." A vaccine is putting something in to someone. Seizure is taking something "out." If we're going to be that creative then a pro abortion jurist can say "A woman's body is seized by the government if she can't have an abortion because they are making her act as an incubator for a baby that she doesn't want."
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But does the Constiutional provision regarding searches apply to the States? The 5th Amendment, like the 4th, doesn't refer to Congress, yet the Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore that the 5th's takings provision didn't apply to the States. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that when the Constitution prohibits the States from doing something it does do explicitly -- e.g., "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." Since there's no similar explicit language in the Bill of Rights, he held that the 5th applied only to the federal government. In addition, he noted that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was precipitated by concerns over the possible abuse of the powers granred to the federal government:



    So you still need the 14th Amendment and the incorporation doctrine.
    That's tyrannical nonsense.
    The BoR is a list of GOD given rights that no government may violate.
    "Congress shall make no law" in the 1stA was a cop out compromise like allowing slavery was, the idea was to get states with established religions to sign on just like the slaves states.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That's tyrannical nonsense.
    The BoR is a list of GOD given rights that no government may violate.
    "Congress shall make no law" in the 1stA was a cop out compromise like allowing slavery was, the idea was to get states with established religions to sign on just like the slaves states.
    God given? Where did The Almighty ever decree that that one can't be convicted of a capital or infamous crime without a grand jury indictment? Or be tried twice for the same offense? Or have the rights set forth in the 6th and 7th Amendments?

    And if you're referring to the Judeo-Christian deity, the right under the 1st Amendment to be a polytheist, atheist, agnostic, or some other non-Judeo-Christian religion is inconsistent with the commands to believe only in the Judeo-Christian deity. The right under the 1st to speak in favor of one's religion and to criticize others would be deemed blasphemous by the rules set down by the J-C deity. And the punishments decreed in the OT for various crimes would surely violate the 8th Amendment.

    Regardless of whether the BOR are rights that no government should violate, the issues in Barron were whether the States that adopted the Constuitution intended the BOR to apply to the States and whether the language used in the document can fairly be read to lead to that result.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Regardless of whether the BOR are rights that no government should violate, the issues in Barron were whether the States that adopted the Constuitution intended the BOR to apply to the States and whether the language used in the document can fairly be read to lead to that result.
    Is the BoR part of the Constitution? Yes

    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    A perfectly fine concept, but it needed to be designated as non-operative dicta.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    It absolutely is a seizure, it is a seizure of control of your body through denying you your rights if you didn't comply.
    It was not reasonable in any way shape or form whether lunatics claimed it was or not.
    The 9thA has no place as a functioning part of the Constitution, it's fine as a statement but dangerous as a functional part of law.
    Rights identified as being missing from the BoR need to be added via amendment, not via judicial fiat.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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 ďliberties,Ē and thatís 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 ďentitlementsĒ because they are things that someone must provide to us, whether weíve earned them or not. We donít have to do anything to obtain positive rights; theyíre 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.)
    Not me, the left is and will conflate the two.
    And Abortion is a positive right because you are destroying the life of the child.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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.
    I specifically said that it hasn't been used much...YET.
    But the left has already begun to use it to advance causes like abortion and contraception and they will move on to food, housing, healthcare, and anything else they can think of.
    I take no position on contraception, but if the states should not be able to ban it then you need an Amendment not a judge who agrees with you.
    An Amendment protecting bodily autonomy freedom in general would be appropriate. (but it should already be covered by the seizure of persons element of the 4thA)
    Privacy has nothing to do with contraception and is adequately protected by the 4thA.

    Open ended clauses in contracts (and that's what the 9thA is) are insanity and may not even be valid.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Is the BoR part of the Constitution? Yes

    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.
    Nice try, but no cigar. You can't make the BOR applicable to the States (before the 14th Amendment came along) if that wasn't the original intent and if, as the Barron court held, there is no specific language saying that the States can't infringe the rights set out in the BOR as it did with things like ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

    Look at Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Then look at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law..." It's clear that these two provisions are addressing two different governments -- the first applies to Congress and the second applies to the States. If the way you interpret the BOR and Article VI were correct, there would have been no need to include the prohibition in Section 10 because it would have already been included in Section 9.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  30. #26
    Nothing says “FREEDOM” like calling for the repeal of part of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

    SMGDH
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Nothing says “FREEDOM” like calling for the repeal of part of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

    SMGDH
    I've been trying to figure out how to convince the OP that shooting himself would piss Democrats off. Because if he were convinced of it, he'd do it.
    "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't it get us out?"--Will Rogers

    "All I know is what I read in the newspapers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance."--Will Rogers

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Nice try, but no cigar. You can't make the BOR applicable to the States (before the 14th Amendment came along) if that wasn't the original intent and if, as the Barron court held, there is no specific language saying that the States can't infringe the rights set out in the BOR as it did with things like ex post facto laws and bills of attainder.

    Look at Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Then look at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law..." It's clear that these two provisions are addressing two different governments -- the first applies to Congress and the second applies to the States. If the way you interpret the BOR and Article VI were correct, there would have been no need to include the prohibition in Section 10 because it would have already been included in Section 9.
    Close, but no cigar.
    Perhaps some parts of the Constitution were written that way (when it is being divided into sections dealing with the states and sections dealing with the feds), but the BoR clearly wasn't or they would not have begun the 1stA (and ONLY the 1stA) with "Congress shall make no law".
    If the BoR only applied to the Feds unless otherwise specified there would be no need for that.

    A2 refers to a right of the people, if it is a right of the people it can't be infringed by the states either.
    A4 also does the same.

    The BoR was written because of concerns about the rights of the people and is clearly written from that perspective including many things that would apply mostly or exclusively to the states at the time.

    To repeat, the 1stA is the only exception and was specifically written to confine its effects to Congress because it would have otherwise applied to the states and those with established religions would not have agreed to the BoR if that was the case.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Nothing says “FREEDOM” like calling for the repeal of part of the BILL OF RIGHTS.

    SMGDH
    OK.
    Have it your way, you can enjoy the "freedom" of being enslaved to pay for the left's "rights" to food, housing, healthcare etc.
    Enjoy...........


    The problem with people like you is that you are too simple minded to understand anything beyond the surface of the nice words as interpreted by you.
    We have already seen the left pervert the preamble to give the feds power to do almost anything under the guise of "general welfare" because the Founders (who were infinitely smarter than you) made the mistake of using flowery language and not specifying that it was inoperative.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    OK.
    Have it your way, you can enjoy the "freedom" of being enslaved to pay for the left's "rights" to food, housing, healthcare etc.
    Enjoy...........


    The problem with people like you is that you are too simple minded to understand anything beyond the surface of the nice words as interpreted by you.
    We have already seen the left pervert the preamble to give the feds power to do almost anything under the guise of "general welfare" because the Founders (who were infinitely smarter than you) made the mistake of using flowery language and not specifying that it was inoperative.

    You don’t know any “people like [me]” nor anything about such people. Therefore your diagnosis as to what may or may not be “the problem with” them is of precisely no value at all.pretty much the same value, in fact, as applies to your evaluation of the 9th Amendment.

    As far as the left abusing the language of the BoR to their own evil ends goes, by similar logic to yours, since some people do indeed abuse their RKBA and shoot up schools with their ARs, maybe we should take everyone’s ARs away too. You know, to make sure no one else abuses them.

    Idiot.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-19-2020, 07:26 AM
  2. Video (This Is Really Good): The Power of Good with Pastor Chuck Baldwin
    By libertygrl in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2013, 04:31 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2009, 05:32 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2008, 03:37 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 08:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •