Replies

Perhaps "Idiot" was a little over the top.

But I still disagree, I have a right to work, watch TV, read, Post on FR etc..., none of these things were granted to me by the government.

The IX Amendment was designed to be a catch all that makes all things legal unless laws are made to the contrary.

That is why when a new drug like Xstacy hit the streets it was 100% legal until laws were made to make it illegal.

The thing is, Walter was pointing out that there is no Constitutional authority present for our government to make such laws in the first place. The qoute you grabbed, out of context, was an illustration of governments current "mindset".

For instance, exactly where does it give the government the power to make a drug illegal? Please cite Article and Paragraph fro mthe US Constitution.

Take your time... we'll wait.

And no. Distortions of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses do not apply.

You're still missing the point. Walter Williams posed a premise. "If 'X', then 'Y.'" You are saying, "But I do not agree to 'X'." Okay, don't. You have now headed off on another topic, and you're welcome to do so.

However, in rejecting 'X' even as a premise (the premise that some might think rights are 'granted' by the government), you're assuming a very dangerous situation - that the premise is so false it doesn't even need to be considered.

Would that it were so. But there are lots and lots of people who think not only that rights are 'granted' by government, but that it should be that way. And IF that is (or ever becomes) the case, then a list of enumerated rights is very dangerous, because all unenumerated rights reside in government, instead of in the people. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would be better not to start down that potentially slippery slope by enumerating any rights in order to make it clear there is no possible basis for drawing a line between one group of rights and another.

Now, having addressed the logical problem raised by Williams, I will offer my own position. We're better off having a list, because people are generally not motivated enough to see things logically. As a result, the statists who lust for power will enslave us utterly unless there is at least some unignorable list of rights.

To use your own example, you (meaning the generic, 'one') didn't really have a 'right' to Xstacy, because the government decided you couldn't have access to it and they can't take away your rights. That you did have access for a while didn't make it a right, just a fact. If you murder someone, that is a fact, not a right, even if you do it before the government gets around to preventing you.

Final point. The 9th Amendment was really intended as a limit on Federal power, but I'll even accept your statement that it was 'designed to be a catch all that makes all things legal unless laws are made to the contrary' as being close enough. However, just because it was 'designed' that way, doesn't mean it will automatically function that way. Even Robert Bork (during the hearings in which he was 'borked') said he thought the 10th Amendment was essentially moot. That 'right' went away despite being written down. And so the 9th Amendment, regardless of intent or 'design' is not protection if people think rights are 'granted' by the government.

The Ninth Amendment prohibits so called "laws" that aim to infringe on unenumerated rights. Such legislation is itself illegal, and NOT law. Law abiding citizens should ignore all such bad legislation.