Skip to comments.Progressing the Constitution -The Ninth Amendment Part I
Posted on 12/03/2018 1:32:07 AM PST by Jacquerie
Over the next few squibs I will show why Scotus has no Constitutional business fabricating rights. As opposed to its assumed authority to invent rights, it is instead duty-bound to defend the Constitution. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment deserves equal protection from the Scotus. Despite this presumption, Scotus has generally interpreted the Ninth Amendment in a manner that denies the sovereign peoples prerogative to assert the rights that Scotus is Constitutionally bound to accept.1
Background. Thanks to the assurances of James Madison and other Federalists, the draft Constitution made its way unscathed through a rough and tumble ratification process. Enough fence-sitters and Anti-Federalists took these honorable men at their word, that the first Congress would propose a Bill of Rights through Article V.
Along with their ratifying certifications, most state conventions submitted amendments to the Constitution. Contrary to modern assumptions, the establishment of government under the Constitution was not a sure thing. While the influence of Anti-Federalists slowly weakened after the eleventh state, New York, ratified on July 26th 1788, Madison was sufficiently spooked by Patrick Henry and other leading opponents that he came around somewhat to their thinking, that a properly designed package of amendments would do no harm to the functioning of Constitutional government, yet better secure the peoples liberty.
On display in their amendments, the leading men of the states shared a common purpose: secure the rights of the grantors, the sovereign people. While we are all familiar with Amendments 1-8, and 10, the basis and intent of the Ninth Amendment is not so clear. On closer consideration well find that it ranks alongside We the People and Article V in setting forth who has the ultimate, supreme earthly power above Congress, the President, Scotus, and the Constitution itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
I do not have a solution to this problem. I just felt duty-bound to point it out. Some will say that electing the "right people" to office is the answer, but I must point out that at best this is a band-aid solution to a catastrophic wounding of the Constitution. A more formal solution is required. Your suggestions would be appreciated.
Yes, unopposed power will corrupt absolutely. Scotus and even lower federal courts are corrupt thanks to a congress neutered by the 17th Amendment.
I have no problem w/Judicial Review. The Framers spoke of it at the Federal Convention and I recently ran across reference to it from a Madison speech to the House on June 17, 1789:
“I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But, I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended, that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another, in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments.”
Until 1913, the states protected themselves and their people from judicial oligarchy. The 17th Amendment so much as repealed the 10th.
There can never be sufficient will in a popularly elected congress to utilize its enormous Article III and impeachment power against tyrannical judges.
My suggestion, which I hammer at my blog, is to repeal the awful 17th Amendment, which can only happen through an Article V Convention of the States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.