• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Peoples Use Of Their Right - 9th AMD

ChrisABrown

Active member
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
254
Reaction score
19
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I've determined over the years that their seems to be great intimidation among the people at even discussing their 9th Amendment right, and how to use it. There is basically a great deal of confusion about what it is for. Unfortunately this is somewhat consistent across the spectrum of our rights.

Basically, there is almost no sense of an ability to use any of our rights for a specific purpose, nor is there a common acceptance of the notion that rights have a vital purpose in defending and enforcing the constitution itself. No one really talks about how to use them.

This thread is to gather opinion upon the proposition that the 9th Amendment may be the most important right of all. If so, what is it for, how do we use it?
 
I've determined over the years that their seems to be great intimidation among the people at even discussing their 9th Amendment right, and how to use it. There is basically a great deal of confusion about what it is for. Unfortunately this is somewhat consistent across the spectrum of our rights.

Basically, there is almost no sense of an ability to use any of our rights for a specific purpose, nor is there a common acceptance of the notion that rights have a vital purpose in defending and enforcing the constitution itself. No one really talks about how to use them.

This thread is to gather opinion upon the proposition that the 9th Amendment may be the most important right of all. If so, what is it for, how do we use it?

And what do you say falls under the 9th amendment?
 
And what do you say falls under the 9th amendment?

Hmm, that is a pretty common reaction, but the language is simple.

Ninth Amendment said:
- Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It clearly includes everything not listed in the constitution, but the question is WHY?
 
Hmm, that is a pretty common reaction, but the language is simple.

It clearly includes everything not listed in the constitution, but the question is WHY?

Why does it include "everything not listed," or why didn't they list everything they thought were such rights?

The people who advocated for the Bill of Rights had suffered through eight years of war against a powerful centralized government.

Prior to that, decades of abuses by British officials, nobles, and soldiers.

Despite the positive aspects of union, they were rightly concerned about the abuses that a centralized authority distant from the People might eventually impose.

They listed those rights which usually get suppressed first to the advantage of central authority.

1. Freedom of Religion and Expression. The story of the Pilgrims, Quakers, and other religious sects; English law that even today allows censorship of just about anything the Government desires to quash.

2. Right to keep and bear arms. The wherewithal to rise up and oppose tyranny and invasion, rather than be meekly compelled by government's monopoly on force to oppress without opposition.

3. Quartering Soldiers. This was a common practice of the English Crown, force citizens to house and feed soldiers for free.

4. Etc...

The point of those first 8 Amendments was to address problems they had first-hand experience with.

The 9th allowed for future generations to determine if anything else should be prevented based on Government's attempt to encroach or abuse them.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, that is a pretty common reaction, but the language is simple.



It clearly includes everything not listed in the constitution, but the question is WHY?

I'm asking for specific examples of what is not listed that you think is a right
 
Why does it include "everything not listed," or why didn't they list everything they thought were such rights?

The 9th allowed for future generations to determine if anything else should be prevented based on Government's attempt to encroach or abuse them

Good job of answering your own question.

I could paraphrase.

The 9th allows for vital adaptations to changing conditions.

And the reasons or purposes served by listed rights is also well assembled.

Thanks!

Now the final query.

How can we state Citizens use the ninth?
 
I'm asking for specific examples of what is not listed that you think is a right

Well, I could do that, but the idea is to try and promote critical thinking on this issue.

The 9th is related to the definition of un-a-lien-able rights. Or guaranteeing the right to list them. But the methods for listing them are not clearly defined which has made it difficult for Citizens to conceive of exactly how to do that.

In that vacuum, it appears that the Supreme Court has taken advantage of the lack of definition to try and assume the role of defining them.

Let us take a definition of a right from the Declaration of Independence (DOI) "the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"(paraphrased). The DOI is not law, but the Constitution has Article V which could serve that vital purpose.

But how do state Cituzens use that, and what could the 9th have do do with using Article V?
 
I would say the broader purpose of the 9th is to affirm that all rights (not just those enumerated) belong to the People, and that to impose restriction on any course of action of any individual, the burden is not on the citizen to prove why he should have this right, but on government to prove why he should not.
 
Well, I could do that, but the idea is to try and promote critical thinking on this issue.

The 9th is related to the definition of un-a-lien-able rights. Or guaranteeing the right to list them. But the methods for listing them are not clearly defined which has made it difficult for Citizens to conceive of exactly how to do that.

In that vacuum, it appears that the Supreme Court has taken advantage of the lack of definition to try and assume the role of defining them.

Let us take a definition of a right from the Declaration of Independence (DOI) "the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"(paraphrased). The DOI is not law, but the Constitution has Article V which could serve that vital purpose.

But how do state Cituzens use that, and what could the 9th have do do with using Article V?

"But how do state Cituzens use that"

Its explained in article 5

"what could the 9th have do do with using Article V?"

Nothing at all.

Have you figured out a right that falls under the 9th amendment yet?

The 9th amendment is mostly a historical curiosity. Everything that is a right has mostly been defined or derived from another part of the document and what hasnt has already been written off as a privilege
 
Well, I could do that, but the idea is to try and promote critical thinking on this issue.

The 9th is related to the definition of un-a-lien-able rights. Or guaranteeing the right to list them. But the methods for listing them are not clearly defined which has made it difficult for Citizens to conceive of exactly how to do that.

In that vacuum, it appears that the Supreme Court has taken advantage of the lack of definition to try and assume the role of defining them.

Let us take a definition of a right from the Declaration of Independence (DOI) "the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"(paraphrased). The DOI is not law, but the Constitution has Article V which could serve that vital purpose.

But how do state Cituzens use that, and what could the 9th have do do with using Article V?

Good grief man, if you have a point, get to it already. This twenty questions nonsense is annoying.
 
Hmm, that is a pretty common reaction, but the language is simple.



It clearly includes everything not listed in the constitution, but the question is WHY?

It's quite simple really. An exhaustive listing of The Rights Of Man, to bring Paine into it, is impossible. A complete listing is impossible for our rights, but a complete listing of the powers of government is very easy. Rights and powers are 2 different things.

Good topic though. Do I have a right to walk down the beach at sunset? Of course I do, but there is no sense in incorporating that into the BOR.
 
Hmm, that is a pretty common reaction, but the language is simple.



It clearly includes everything not listed in the constitution, but the question is WHY?

Its purpose is the same as all of the rights contained in the bill of rights and that is to limit the power of federal government.
 
I've determined over the years that their seems to be great intimidation among the people at even discussing their 9th Amendment right, and how to use it. There is basically a great deal of confusion about what it is for. Unfortunately this is somewhat consistent across the spectrum of our rights.

Basically, there is almost no sense of an ability to use any of our rights for a specific purpose, nor is there a common acceptance of the notion that rights have a vital purpose in defending and enforcing the constitution itself. No one really talks about how to use them.

This thread is to gather opinion upon the proposition that the 9th Amendment may be the most important right of all. If so, what is it for, how do we use it?

"I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says “Congress shall make no” and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot if you cannot read it."
 
I would say the broader purpose of the 9th is to affirm that all rights (not just those enumerated) belong to the People, and that to impose restriction on any course of action of any individual, the burden is not on the citizen to prove why he should have this right, but on government to prove why he should not.

I like that, and can recall in practice that I've seen good government acting just as you suggest.

What I'm headed towards here is where entities have taken a space that the masses need, and the entities will not reasonably share.
 

"I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says “Congress shall make no” and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot if you cannot read it."

Ahh, I agree. However, if the people decide it says something, then it says that, and such shall not be denied or disparaged.

However, "the people" imply a majority if I'm not mistaken, when it comes to that kind of definition. I mean since we are republic that guarantees a democractic form of government which must respect the principles of the republic.
 
"But how do state Cituzens use that"

Its explained in article 5

"what could the 9th have do do with using Article V?"

Nothing at all.

Have you figured out a right that falls under the 9th amendment yet?

The 9th amendment is mostly a historical curiosity. Everything that is a right has mostly been defined or derived from another part of the document and what hasnt has already been written off as a privilege

Hmmm, but what is required for Article 5's clause, "all amendments must have constitutional intent"(paraphrased) to be realized when all rights are not listed? State powers do not allow legislators to define rights, so it must be the people using the 9th in the case of an essential right not listed.

Now we must examine what it takes to compel state legislations to recognize rights not listed, but retained and not to be denied or disparaged. History might be curious, but our future requires many things that are not known, and the 9th can fill that requirement well, but we must learn how to use it.
 
It's quite simple really. An exhaustive listing of The Rights Of Man, to bring Paine into it, is impossible. A complete listing is impossible for our rights, but a complete listing of the powers of government is very easy. Rights and powers are 2 different things.

Good topic though. Do I have a right to walk down the beach at sunset? Of course I do, but there is no sense in incorporating that into the BOR.

A critical point in historical philosophy underlying the development of law to being with. Good points!

My point is becoming revealed. We need to control a federal government that has become overbearing and intrusive that seems to be colluding with entities that are destructive to unalienable rights. Therein is a basic use of the 9th Amendment, to define unalienable rights and then use Article 5 to see them listed by controlling states to do so.

But, there is a critical element of functionality missing.
 
A critical point in historical philosophy underlying the development of law to being with. Good points!

My point is becoming revealed. We need to control a federal government that has become overbearing and intrusive that seems to be colluding with entities that are destructive to unalienable rights. Therein is a basic use of the 9th Amendment, to define unalienable rights and then use Article 5 to see them listed by controlling states to do so.

But, there is a critical element of functionality missing.

No matter how well thought out, how well written, no political document is perfect. Ours is pretty darn good IMO.

Madison was naïve in thinking the judiciary would be the last bulwark against tyranny. Any government is made up of humans, and humans are inherently corrupt when power and influence and money are involved.

Our principles and documents are good, but humans quickly become corrupt and subvert the rule of law.
 
No matter how well thought out, how well written, no political document is perfect. Ours is pretty darn good IMO.

Madison was naïve in thinking the judiciary would be the last bulwark against tyranny. Any government is made up of humans, and humans are inherently corrupt when power and influence and money are involved.

Our principles and documents are good, but humans quickly become corrupt and subvert the rule of law.

I agree completely.

The people are the ones designated to have or define rights not listed, but logically it would be their majority opinion that would make a right one that could be listed. Logically, and consistent with the intents of the constitution, such an overview of rights, or the need for one not listed, by a large number of people tends to nullify corruption when there is an ability to conduct a full public evaluation of the issue surrounding the need to define and list a right that is not listed.

That one feature or ability to conduct mass evaluation seem to be what is missing and very likely responsible for the corruption having so much control for so long.

Therefore, it seems that states Citizens must find an agreement upon constitutional intent that is at the foundation of the constitution and its purpose. And, such an agreement or its inherent authority is a use and application of the 9th Amendment as far as I can tell.
 
I agree completely.

The people are the ones designated to have or define rights not listed, but logically it would be their majority opinion that would make a right one that could be listed. Logically, and consistent with the intents of the constitution, such an overview of rights, or the need for one not listed, by a large number of people tends to nullify corruption when there is an ability to conduct a full public evaluation of the issue surrounding the need to define and list a right that is not listed.

That one feature or ability to conduct mass evaluation seem to be what is missing and very likely responsible for the corruption having so much control for so long.

Therefore, it seems that states Citizens must find an agreement upon constitutional intent that is at the foundation of the constitution and its purpose. And, such an agreement or its inherent authority is a use and application of the 9th Amendment as far as I can tell.

Well, George Bush is famously quoted calling the Constitution "just a piece of paper", or words to that effect. He had hired lawyers subvert the law and thereby institutionalize torture within the federal government. Point being, again, no matter how well written the law is, corrupt humans will find a way to subvert it, and if the good humans refuse to punish the bad humans, the bad guys win. That is where we are now on the continuum--the bad guys have won. Apologies for the cynicism, but that's just the way it is.
 
Well, George Bush is famously quoted calling the Constitution "just a piece of paper", or words to that effect. He had hired lawyers subvert the law and thereby institutionalize torture within the federal government. Point being, again, no matter how well written the law is, corrupt humans will find a way to subvert it, and if the good humans refuse to punish the bad humans, the bad guys win. That is where we are now on the continuum--the bad guys have won. Apologies for the cynicism, but that's just the way it is.

I agree, no apologies needed, but what I've posted is that IF, the good human can agree, THEN they can define and see a right listed that will enable them to at least enforce the law using the 9th Amendment.
 
I agree, no apologies needed, but what I've posted is that IF, the good human can agree, THEN they can define and see a right listed that will enable them to at least enforce the law using the 9th Amendment.

A little trivia for you, of which you may already be aware: the only case ever to even mention the Ninth as part of its deliberations was Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, 381US479
 
Although freedom of expression is a very valuable necessity for us Americans, to a certain extent, it is limited. In exchange for protection from domestic, or international problems, we forfeit some valuable rights through the social contract. As I do believe in keeping the government in check, if everyone were to use civil disobedience any time that they believed a law was just or unjust, we would live in a world of chaos, and nothing would be accomplished (anarchy). If the government is not legitimate through the social contract, our rights are useless. We give up CERTAIN rights. For an analogy, if you were at an office, you forfeit the second amendment, and to a certain extent, the first amendment. We have to accept this because in exchange for giving up certain rights, you are being payed.
 
Although freedom of expression is a very valuable necessity for us Americans, to a certain extent, it is limited. In exchange for protection from domestic, or international problems, we forfeit some valuable rights through the social contract. As I do believe in keeping the government in check, if everyone were to use civil disobedience any time that they believed a law was just or unjust, we would live in a world of chaos, and nothing would be accomplished (anarchy). If the government is not legitimate through the social contract, our rights are useless. We give up CERTAIN rights. For an analogy, if you were at an office, you forfeit the second amendment, and to a certain extent, the first amendment. We have to accept this because in exchange for giving up certain rights, you are being payed.
 
A little trivia for you, of which you may already be aware: the only case ever to even mention the Ninth as part of its deliberations was Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, 381US479

LOL, I used it to answer an OSC regarding jurisdiction from a federal judge in a false advertising complaint in 2004. The judge immediately withdrew the OSC, but the district court immediately reassigned the case to another judge who refiled the OSC. Of course my previously accept answer was rejected and the case dismissed. Made me feel very special.
 
Back
Top Bottom