Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Terrell; tpaine
"Specific enumeration of our rights is not needed. -- Read the 9th or the 14th for proof."

I can read the ninth. But how do the courts read the ninth?

695 F.2d 261 (google it)

The Seventh Circuit found no Supreme Court precedent to support the theory that the Ninth Amendment protects any specific right. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has not been used to define the rights of individuals or to invalidate state or federal laws.

"Since appellants do not cite, and our research has not revealed, any Supreme Court case holding that any specific right is protected by the ninth amendment, appellants' argument has no legal significance. Appellants may believe the ninth amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms; the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory."

Please stop it with the 9th Amendment references. And William, I guess we'll need your list after all.

106 posted on 01/12/2003 11:55:19 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Proud member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
Next you'll be quoting the 9th Circuit?

In any case that is an insane 'finding'. -- The ninth amendment clearly says that "others retained by the people" shall not be denied.
Both the 7th Circuit and you are denying your own rights. -- Why? - Its irrational.

113 posted on 01/12/2003 12:35:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
You cite a case from the 7th Circuit in 1982. Circuit courts are overturned all the time. Did you shepardize it? The court says the SC never embraces the theory the 9th amendement includes the right to arms. Of course not, the right has its own amendment, as you pointed out.

The court is not saying that the 9th amendments does not protect unenumerated rights held by the people, it's saying that it checked the SC rulings and couldn't find one that enumerated the rights to be protected under the 9th. It probably found several where the SC said the 9th protects rights not otherwise named in the Constitution.

To read it any other way is nonsense. If the 9th amendment doesn't protect unenumerated rights fo the people, why is it there and why is the wording as it is?

Certerori was denied to the SC because the point that the 9th protects what the 2nd protects was argued. Cert was not denied because the SC refused to rule on the fact the 9th protects unenerated rights.

The wording of the 9th is clear, unambiguous and to the point. No cigar. Try again.

119 posted on 01/12/2003 1:17:48 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
Another Circuit Court decision knocking down the "drugs equal guns" assertion:

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.

Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.

https://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndcircuit/november96/96-2060.html


124 posted on 01/12/2003 2:07:44 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson