Ninth Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, SHALL NOT be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people."
Suppose you, a member of the people, enjoy having a hamburger, french fries, and coke daily. A right, easily classified as a right "retained by the people." (Or even the decision to wear a seat belt or not)
The majority of the people decide one day, to petition their federal government to deny you this culinary delight, for "health" reasons, for example.
Does that mean you no longer have a constitutionally protected, unenumerated right that supposedly cannot be denied or disparged because now the majority does not want you to have that right?
Doesn't seem logical to me or for that matter being free and living with the blessing of liberty that the Constitution, whether federal or state, was supposed to protect.
Obviously there is a conflict between a law and a covenant of a Constitution.
There has to be an arbiter.
If the majority does not like the decisions of the judges, the people shoud initiate their constitutional right and AMEND the constitution to enact the law that was held unconstitutional by a judge(s) or impeach the judge(s).
That is the proper procedure and remedy to protect the rights of all of the citizens.
I thought only socialist/communist democrats used polling data showing the majoirty of Americans want their government to take action in an unconstitutional manner.
Surprisingly, Marshall addressed just that issue in Marbury.. He said that:
. " -- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
Doesn't seem logical to me or for that matter being free and living with the blessing of liberty that the Constitution, whether federal or state, was supposed to protect. Obviously there is a conflict between a law and a covenant of a Constitution.
There has to be an arbiter.
If the majority does not like the decisions of the judges, the people should initiate their constitutional right and AMEND the constitution to enact the law that was held unconstitutional by a judge(s) or impeach the judge(s).
And, -- [catch 22], we cannot 'amend away' rights that are repugnant to Constitutional principles, -- as Marshall sees it..
That is the proper procedure and remedy to protect the rights of all of the citizens.
I thought only socialist/communist democrats used polling data showing the majority of Americans want their government to take action in an unconstitutional manner.
Most of them are so stupid on constitutional issues that they know not what they do..