Six Amendments to the Constitution

http://radicalacademy.com/adler_amendments.htm ^ | M. Adler

[Eastbound]

"The prohibitionists hold that gov't might is 'right'. -- The 2nd holds that an armed people are right."

Bookmarked for later.

The prohibitionists are fully aware where the true power lies, but utilize incrementalism to keep from swarming the hive. It's been working well.

[budwiesest]

Third, the Ninth Amendment declares that the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments do not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

They must be either the civil rights previously conferred on the citizens by the several states or the unalienable, natural, and human rights mentioned in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

Sometimes, it seems these 'rights' conferred by the states include:

The right to be disarmed 'cause we said so and passed a law.

The right to be insecure in your person, places, and effects. And if you are, we'll invent a new class of felony we can probably assign to you.

The right to be nanny-stated to death. Your freedom to act responsibly is, or has been determined (by people who know better), a risk that a 'secure' society should not have to take in today's litigious enviornment. Have a nice day.

[tpaine]

Adler asks:

"-- What are these other [unenumerated, '9th'] rights?

They must be either the civil rights previously conferred on the citizens by the several states or the unalienable, natural, and human rights mentioned in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
It is most likely that those who formulated and adopted the Ninth Amendment were conscious at the time of the unalienable (natural, human) rights mentioned in the Declaration. --"

Apparently, Adler acknowledges that the States can 'confer' certain civil rights to citizens, -- but nonetheless realizes that most rights are "- unalienable (natural, human) rights -", primarily protected by our supreme law.

[budwiesest]

As the citizen of a state (California) it is difficult to imagine any civil right my state may bestow upon me that hasn't already been included in the BOR:
Free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, no troops in my house, pay me for taking my property, etc. The BOR doesn't need fixing. What does, however, is the Fed and State interpretations of said ammendments.

Our courts have failed to hold their position, lawyers have stormed the gates. And, our rights have been the casualties of a lacking leadership to which We The People expend much effort in electing every four years or so.

I've little faith that our appointed and elected representatives will ever respect the 'natural' rights of the people. Especially given the miriad ways they're violated daily. Perhaps a 10 or 15 day waiting period will help to disavow this impression I've had. But I think not.

[tpaine]

The BOR doesn't need fixing. What does, however, is the Fed and State interpretations of said ammendments.

You can say that again. -- And again. -- Thanks.