Sounds about right. I don't believe I can think of a time I've ever seen it cited or referenced anywhere. You wouldn't know it existed if you didn't read the Bill of Rights. What have the Supremes had to say about it over the years?

 

Precious little as far as I know. I've read Scalia's thoughts on it, but not in an actual judicial opinion. He believes that the Ninth is not a source of rights, but rather a rule on how to read the constitution.

 

There's an argument to be made about "enumeration of certain rights" vs. "enumeration of certain powers" but going that deep into my brain to access my first semester of Constitutional Law just makes my head hurt and I can't remember much of it anyway.

Some info: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/p/9th_amendment.htm

 

I had completely forgotten about the Ninth's role in the right to privacy discussion in Griswold. I know that the Ninth was roundly rejected by the majority decision in Roe v. Wade as justification, relying instead almost entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which certainly has a lot more jurisdiction surrounding it than does the Ninth.

An understanding of the proper order of power as outlined in the Constitution is needed to properly understand this amendment. The People own - literally - the constitution and it is the People who are then providing 'rights' through enumerated Articles and Amendments to the Federal government.

 

As rights (powers) are given to the government these rights (powers) then reduce or limit The People's natural rights.

 

To understand the concept of the 9th Amendment, the concept of natural rights or natural law must understood or at least acknowledged.

I had completely forgotten about the Ninth's role in the right to privacy discussion in Griswold. I know that the Ninth was roundly rejected by the majority decision in Roe v. Wade as justification, relying instead almost entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which certainly has a lot more jurisdiction surrounding it than does the Ninth.

 

http://www.billofrightsday.com/read-the-bill-of-rights/ninth-amendment/

 

Reference to Griswold ruling in link above.

 

Also

 

"The Ninth Amendment implicitly refers to natural rights, which the Founders believed all people were born with as the gift of God or nature."

A good reminder when discussing The Constitution:

 

 

A good reminder when discussing The Constitution:

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35363[/ATTACH]

 

Simply don't agree. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it did not give the Central Government enough power, so it had to be changed and more power added. Again, the social contract theory - agreed to on some level by all of the founders - was about the people giving up some rights to the central government so that we could live in peace.

I had completely forgotten about the Ninth's role in the right to privacy discussion in Griswold. I know that the Ninth was roundly rejected by the majority decision in Roe v. Wade as justification, relying instead almost entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which certainly has a lot more jurisdiction surrounding it than does the Ninth.

 

It seems to my amateur eye that the Ninth would more clearly include a right to privacy than the penumbra argument. Though I agree with that as well, it seems the Ninth is actually explicit about that.

Simply don't agree. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it did not give the Central Government enough power, so it had to be changed and more power added. Again, the social contract theory - agreed to on some level by all of the founders - was about the people giving up some rights to the central government so that we could live in peace.

 

The states gave up some of their powers to the central government, not the people, under the new constitution. The rights of the people were not deemed protected until the Bill of Rights were added. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly grant all powers to the people and states not given to the Federal Government or denied to the people or states. What many believe is that there are those who wish to override the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and grant more power to the central government and make us servants to the government, not the government being our servant.

Simply don't agree. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it did not give the Central Government enough power, so it had to be changed and more power added. Again, the social contract theory - agreed to on some level by all of the founders - was about the people giving up some rights to the central government so that we could live in peace.

 

And thus, the ninth amendment was to make it explicitly clear that by giving up a small subset of rights that usurp a subset of natural rights or natural law as part of this social contract that the remaining natural rights were not to be assumed to be given up.

 

Every time we give a limited and enumerated 'right' to the government with new positive law we are removing or limiting the non-enumerated natural rights of The People. And whiled needed for the 'social contract' it something to be wary of every time it is done.

And thus, the ninth amendment was to make it explicitly clear that by giving up a small subset of rights that usurp a subset of natural rights or natural law as part of this social contract that the remaining natural rights were not to be assumed to be given up.

 

Every time we give a limited and enumerated 'right' to the government with new positive law we are removing or limiting the non-enumerated natural rights of The People. And whiled needed for the 'social contract' it something to be wary of every time it is done.

 

Agreed, we are always to be wary, but that is why we have an elected assembly of the people and an elected executive of the people to guard. My concern is always who's interest is being guarded and who's rights are being protected.

...but that is why we have an elected assembly of the people and an elected executive of the people to guard. My concern is always who's interest is being guarded and who's rights are being protected.

 

I and I believe most people who believe in the 'limitations' of government would not view Senators and Congressmen/women as 'guarders' of the People's natural rights. In fact, since they are responsible for passing laws that usually limit or curtail natural rights they are usually the ones we must hold accountable - usually via elections. These people do swear to protect the Constitution against enemies - both foreign and domestic - but they do not swear to not erode the People's natural rights.

But they do swear to uphold the Constitution. Again I am just as wary as you. When money can buy congress people what do we do?

Has or has not Congress always been the "elite" of their times?

 

I think a cross sampling of Congress goes to show that they are now where close to the average citizen, and there in lies the problem.

 

Isn't 47% of Congress part of the "1%" many talk about?

It seems to my amateur eye that the Ninth would more clearly include a right to privacy than the penumbra argument. Though I agree with that as well, it seems the Ninth is actually explicit about that.

 

That's what I mean. I'm not certain about what the Ninth Amendment suggests because I'm not sure what base we started with. There's been some discussion in this thread about natural law and natural rights; if the founders believed in such a thing AND meant for it to be a basis for the Constitution, then the base of what the Ninth deals with is not absolute freedom, but whatever freedoms and rights were granted to the people by way of the natural law. This then opens the whole concept of what those rights might be and they have to be established before we can even begin to discuss which were ceded to the government in order to create it. It's not an easy concept to deal with and it's why I don't know how useful the Ninth really is if we're looking for explicit instruction.

 

When we can't even agree on rules of construction is it any wonder we have such fights about what the actual text might mean?

That's what I mean. I'm not certain about what the Ninth Amendment suggests because I'm not sure what base we started with. There's been some discussion in this thread about natural law and natural rights; if the founders believed in such a thing AND meant for it to be a basis for the Constitution, then the base of what the Ninth deals with is not absolute freedom, but whatever freedoms and rights were granted to the people by way of the natural law. This then opens the whole concept of what those rights might be and they have to be established before we can even begin to discuss which were ceded to the government in order to create it. It's not an easy concept to deal with and it's why I don't know how useful the Ninth really is if we're looking for explicit instruction.

 

When we can't even agree on rules of construction is it any wonder we have such fights about what the actual text might mean?

 

:thumb: Good point. At least that explains why it might be ignored by the SC. Though, I think one could make a fairly strong argument that the Founders considered liberty to be a natural right.