The Ninth Amendment

No, I don't think it has, primarily because these states have no real basis to violate individual rights, and acknowlege that fact in their political decisions. - IE, they can't get voting citizens to support laws that violate rights.

Really? Anyone remember Little Rock? Brown v. Board? How successful was Orval Faubus when it came to defying the federal government? For that matter, how successful was Jefferson Davis?

Faubus was denying the right of a kid to go to school. He gave up to federal force, yes, but never appealed. - Why? Because he didn't have enough political support. - He should have fought it, and commited political suicide, -- just as the south commited constitutional suicide.

---------------------------

They never have had the power to violate individual rights.

The states? How applicable was the Sixth Amendment right to counsel before the 14'th Amendment and Gideon? If a person has a right to counsel, but is denied that by the state, surely that right is being violated, isn't it?

I don't have a clue as to what point you are attempting to make. Sorry.

---------------------------

You disagree with some of the personal freedoms guaranteed by the 14th, so you wish to blame the constitutional process it outlines.

I do? I didn't think so. I merely point out that if the 9'th is revived, there is a significant danger that it will be abused by activist judges, under the auspices of incorporation via the 14'th.

Revived? - Its never been dead. - Again, a state can argue such 'abuses' literally forever before the USSC, and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works.
IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.

There's nothing wrong with either amendment in isolation, IMO, but when you put the two together, it becomes a very powerful and very dangerous way for people with a particular agenda to impose their values on the nation as a whole.

And without the BoR's we would see such agendas imposed on entire states.

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?

This never happened; it was a lie. Hamilton never suggested such a scheme. It was an invention of his enemies like accusations that he was involved in financial misdeeds while at Treasury. There were many lies thrown up against him by enemies frustrated by his political success at every turn.This is easily proven by a little investigation into his life. Hamilton never hid his views or worked secretly through others like Jefferson. He proclaimed his beliefs in public come Hell or high water. This was one of the reasons some disliked him.

I don't understand what the rest of your post was trying to get across. If it is claiming that the South did not fight the war because of slavery that is simply false. It fought entirely because of slavery and admitted it happily.

Hamilton, like Jackson and Lincoln and any other responsible president would have never allowed the Union to be destroyed and the constitution thrashed by N.E. or the Slaveocracy. But the N.Englanders were not so insane as to attack federal facilities and provoke a war. Nor did many Federalists support secession.

There is no question that the 1st did not apply to the States. There were State established religions supported by taxes, States prosecuted and jailed unapproved preachers, during Jefferson's presidency States routinely punished Federalist editors and papers. Peter Porcupine was driven out of the country by State persecution. Hamilton's last major court case was defending freedom of the press against attacks from the Republican government in NY state. Newspapers, periodicals and books were routinely removed from the mails in the South if abolitionist. Papers burned, editors tarred and feathered, presses destroyed when publishing abolitionist thoughts.

After all the 1st says "Congress shall make no laws...." Not "no laws shall be made...." Unlike the 2d which states "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Which is a blanket prohibition on actions by all political authorities.

Those pushing the BoR were not opposed to State restrictions only federal.

This never happened; it was a lie. Hamilton never suggested such a scheme. It was an invention of his enemies like accusations that he was involved in financial misdeeds while at Treasury

I refer you to Hamilton's speech to the Constitutional Convention

Particularly

I "The Supreme Legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two different bodies of men; the one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate who together shall form the Legislature of the United States with power to pass all laws whatsoever subject to the Negative hereafter mentioned.
II The Assembly to consist of persons elected by the people to serve for three years.
III. The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour; their election to be made by electors chosen for that purpose by the people: in order to this the States to be divided into election districts. On the death, removal or resignation of any Senator his place to be filled out of the district from which he came.
IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour--the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid--The authorities & functions of the Executive to be as follows: to have a negative on all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed, to have the direction of war when authorized or begun; to have with the advice and approbation of the Senate the power of making all treaties; to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs; to have the nomination of all other officers (Ambassadors to foreign Nations included) subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate; to have the power of pardoning all offences except Treason; which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the Senate.
V. On the death resignation or removal of the Governour his authorities to be exercised by the President of the Senate till a Successor be appoint

Notice interestingly enough the ONLY group to serve a set term were in the House of Representatives(Assembly). The Senate and the President('Governour') were to serve until a time of 'death, resignation, or removal'. Much as the English system of government except we apparently had the 'joy' of electing our king. How gracious of him < /sarcasm> The man was a loon to say the least. An elected king, how novel

Saying that states no longer have some power is really not the same as saying that they should have that power, is it?

I'm saying that they used to be able to do lots of things that they can't now, and you're turning that around to mean that I think they should be able to do those things. It doesn't follow - you're reading things into it that aren't there.

-------------------------------

dirtboy; Doug Loss
Sorry, I should have been more clear - obviously this is in light of the 14'th Amendment. Considering the 14'th, the 9'th Amendment really does become a wish list, where there's no logical grounds for determining what is and isn't a "right" of the people.

Some conservatives are enamored of the 9'th Amendment because they see it as a way of restricting government, but truthfully it can be just as easily used the other way, to impose values that conservatives might find objectionable.

Ponder this one - suppose SCOTUS were to declare tomorrow that gay marriage was a 9'th Amendment right, that applied to the states via the 14'th. How do you object to that? How do you show that it's somehow not a right? No, the 9'th Amendment is best left dead - it's just too dangerous to actually use.

It's no accident that there's approximately one Supreme Court case in all of American history that cites the 9'th Amendment, and that was in concurrence, and is not binding precedent.
26 posted on 7/23/02 8:01 AM Pacific by general_re

Those pushing the BoR were not opposed to State restrictions only federal.

Not true. Read paragraph 2, Article VI, about the 'Law of the Land' & the 'Laws of any State, to the Contrary notwithstanding'.
--- The states were already so restricted to obeying the whole of the constitution.

NOt the first amendment which was binding only on Congress passing laws. That is why Mass, Va, and other states had laws allowing the establishment of religion and why the 14th specifically expanded coverage to the states.

He never suggested having a King merely an executive not limited by time. I guess you think federal judges are "KINGS" too. LoL. H. was the most brilliant man of his generation perhaps in the entire world. If you know little of his lifestory you will likely swallow the lies concocted by the Jeffersonians.

Besides the speech at the CC has nothing to do with the lie that he wanted W. as King. A lie retracted by the character assassin spreading it when H. forced him to face him on the field of honor or retract. A lie based on third hand rumour which no one was willing to risk their life defending.

Not the first amendment which was binding only on Congress passing laws.

You are simply denying that the words of the constitution mean what they say. Thanks.

That is why Mass, Va, and other states had laws allowing the establishment of religion and why the 14th specifically expanded coverage to the states.

I can't imagine what your point is here. The 14th had something to do with pre-constitutional laws about religion? How weird.

by your so called logic then ,since abortion is predominate in in the black community, it should not be considered illegal, because it is not killing humans ,,only savages

Very impressive presentation, Dixie. I wish I had witnessed it in person. But the written argument is very informative as well. You obviously did your homework.

The rights covered by the ninth and also the tenth are rights that are to be protected, not granted by the government - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They cannot be taken away, but it seems that government has forgotten that with various infringements.

We have seen that with the land grabs in Washington State, Nevada, Ohio and West Virginia.
We have seen it with the passing of the Campaign Finance Reform, Wade vs Roe, Sexuality being taught in schools, prayer being denied in public schools and other public venues, submission to drug tests, disclosure of finances, medical information disclosures, denial of cannabis for medical purposes, catering to pedophiles, catering to criminals, verbal sexual harassment, TIP and VIP, hate crimes (good grief all crimes are "hate"), the list goes on and on and on. Perhaps the two greatest test will be with the formation and implementation of the Homeland Security and the Cyberworld and what can and cannot be put out over the 'net.

---------------------------

All the federal 'laws' & the court decisions about the bolded activities on your list are infringments on individual rights, - and should be fought against by the states in their check/balance role on behalf of their citizens. That states DO NOT do so tells the political tale.

Roe v wade is about state infringements on an individual right, [to abort] and the sex and prayer in school flaps are also about local/state infringments.
-- Again, states are free to challenge the constitution on what exactly construes an individual right, but to many of us, it is self evident enough to account for the lack of such challenges.

Thus, on roe/wade/religious type issues we see no constitutional challenges on the basis of self interest, and on federal infringments we see none because of state/federal political collusion.

We's in deep trouble.

" The states and the people will be supreme."

And slavery was a way to punish blacks...

I didn't know that! Slaveowners owned slaves because they wanted "to punish blacks."

You learn something new every day. I had no idea that the local police K-9 unit keeps dogs in service because they want to punish canines.

I didn't understand that my Granddad owned a plow horse because he wanted to punish horses. Now I understand.

My neighbor who has two cats must be really depraved as she keeps two cats around. She must truely hate cats in order to want to punish them to that extent.

He never suggested having a King merely an executive not limited by time. I guess you think federal judges are "KINGS" too. LoL. H. was the most brilliant man of his generation perhaps in the entire world. If you know little of his lifestory you will likely swallow the lies concocted by the Jeffersonians.

You can NOT be that naive. This form of government H was suggesting still exists in Great Britain. If you like it so much, move over there. A House of Lords that will soon have to face some form of limited election. A Prime Minister that apparently never goes away and a House of Commons that in the end all they do is talk to hear themselves speak. You would honestly want a President with as much power as the Tyrant had to just stay in office until he wanted to go or was forced to resign? Even with popular election of Presidents, impeachment has only been used twice and both times neither were convicted. You think with the sacredness most citizens of these United States hold the office of the Presidency in that impeachment would ever be used for a lifetime President or Senators for that matter? With the power held in the Senate? You don't want to live in a Republic, you want a monarchy!!

I don't have a clue as to what point you are attempting to make. Sorry.

That's okay - I'll walk you through it.

Revived? - Its never been dead. - Again, a state can argue such 'abuses' literally forever before the USSC...

Not on the Ninth or Tenth, they can't. It's dead as a matter of Constitutional law, even if folks still have some attachment to it.

...and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works. IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.

That's a fairly easy thing to say, especially fifty years removed. Might I suggest that the folks on the ground at the time had a better sense of what their practical options were?

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?

You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?

As for your post #146, I'm sorry - it's my turn not to follow you. I just don't see how you derive from that exchange the idea that I somehow favor the states being able to contravene the BoR. You are refuting an argument I don't make...

by your so called logic then ,since abortion is predominate in in the black community, it should not be considered illegal, because it is not killing humans ,,only savages

Are you sure you're on the right thread? That you've pointed your reply at the right person? Because I can't for the life of me see how you derive that from my post #66...

Revived? - Its never been dead. - Again, a state can argue such 'abuses' literally forever before the USSC...

Not on the Ninth or Tenth, they can't. It's dead as a matter of Constitutional law, even if folks still have some attachment to it.

Bull. - Quote this 'law'.

--------------------------

...and in the meantime ignore enforcing them on their citizens. - Civil disobedience works. IE - The troops at Little Rock could not have put the whole town in jail for refusing to allow their kids to attend integrated schools.

That's a fairly easy thing to say, especially fifty years removed. Might I suggest that the folks on the ground at the time had a better sense of what their practical options were?

Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.

-----------------------

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?

You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?

No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.

Bull. - Quote this 'law'.

Surely you know the difference between de jure dead and de facto dead. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are de facto dead. How many laws have been overturned based on the protections afforded by those amendments?

Suggest what you like, but don't imagine you've refuted my point.

I don't need to refute it - pointing out that it's just so much armchair quarterbacking serves well enough.

Do you have the opinion that states were not originally subject to the first ten amendments?

You are familiar with Gitlow v. New York, yes?

No.
Why should I be? - And why are you playing games about it? Make your point, and answer the question.

Okay, I'll answer the question - what difference does it make what I think? Before the 14'th Amendment and subsequent court cases flowing from it, neither the states nor the courts nor the federal government thought that the Bill of Rights did much to restrict the states.

That being said, I'll try again. Are you familiar with Gideon v Wainwright?