Replies

"Tell that to your local DA and Ass't. US Attorney."

This is what I will tell to the DA and Ass't. US Attorney and have already been telling my local alderamen and councilmen to stop a "regulation" on private property and to virtually stop a smoke free county wide ordinance.

U.S. Supreme Court HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) Justice O'Connor

monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured. . . ."

Congress did not intend to override state immunity when it enacted 1983 was relevant to statutory construction: "Given that a principal purpose behind the enactment of 1983 was to provide a federal forum for civil rights claims,"

We hold that state officials, sued in their individual capacities, are "persons" within the meaning of 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits, nor are state officers absolutely immune from personal liability under 1983 solely by virtue of the "official" nature of their acts.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

When the "every person" is confronted with the possibility that their equity in their home, their savings, their children's college education money, their retirement accounts, are "on the line," so to speak, they have been backing off their blatant disregard for the "rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution."

I have been having fun.

Hers's the scoop on the Ninth Amendment: First, there are relatively few cases interpreting the Amendment, at least compared to the number of cases dealing with the 1st, 4th, 4th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

Second, since the early 1800's, the SCOTUS has held that the 9th Amendment doesn't create any substantive rights in and by itself, but rather, is intended to preserve "fundemental rights" that are not otherwise specifically included or addressed in the Bill of Rights. In other words, the Bill of Rights is intended to supplement, and not extinguish those fundemental rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Although the SCOTUS has interpreted the 9th Amendment as I have described for something like 180 years, the most famous 9th Amendment case is Roe v. Wade, where the Court cited the 9th Amendment as the source of the "fundemental right" to kill your baby in the name of "privacy."