''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.
Okay. Everyone is born with natural rights. When a government is formed, you surrender some of those rights in exchange for the protection of others. The rights rights that are not surrendered to the government are those that are "retained". Rights that were "assigned to the government" are those rights that were given up to the government in exchange for the security of living in a society and could be infringed. You are thinking of the term "assigned into the hands of the General Government" as meaning it is the Government's duty to define and protect those rights. It does not mean that at all.
"You are thinking of the term "assigned into the hands of the General Government" as meaning it is the Government's duty to define and protect those rights. It does not mean that at all. "
If Randy had his way it would, exactly!
The precise implication of this article is that federal judges should define and protect our unenumerated rights (Libertarianly, of course)- how much more could they be in the government's hands?
What more power over our unenumerated rights could the government possibly have than to define for itself what they are?
Madison's intent with the Ninth was that the courts would instead have to recognize unenumerated rights which were retained by the people.