The Ultimate Purpose Of The Right To Free Speech - Re-established through the 9th AMD.

Curious how Americans seem acutely aware of the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That being to protect the unalienable right to life; either by warding off direct threat, defending the nation from invasion, or hunting food, or, in the worst case, perhaps dealing with a government that becomes destructive to unalienable rights, when all other remedy has failed.

But, what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?

The Declaration of Independence defines a right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, then the constitution, law, grants a right to a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, Article 5. But that is done by the states. Meaning the people must have the unity required to control their state legislations through democratic majority with the right of redress of grievance, and direct them to form conventions proposing amendment.

So we arrive at the obvious ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish through Article 5. And, clearly, the 9th Amendment.


Obviously, the 9th must include that unlisted PURPOSE for the right to freedom of speech, because without the unity of the people required, the constitution cannot be enforced, and may end as the supreme law of the land. So therein, the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to protect unalienable rights, which is consistent with the 2nd AMD, because with Article 5, the act of altering or abolishing can be done peacefully and orderly, which is the a prime intent of the constitution. With that considered, the 1st Amendment is deficient, which appears to have led to a great weakness in the people

Accordingly, states Citizens, must create consensus upon definition and newly list a right, in majorities and assert that upon their state legislations to form conventions to propose amendment to the constitution.

Some may think congress has the role of this, but congress is amiss in their duty, and will do no such thing. In which case, Article 5 reads to empower 3/4 of the states to define such intent for the constitution. Therefore it is up to the people to create a majority in 3/4 of the states that define that right, which is not listed and not to be denied or disparaged.

I would suggest that simple language like this will work well.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.


Whereas 1), connects to historical intent, and 2) enables that intent.

I can tell by the way this forum rests that my point about free speech having an ultimate PURPOSE is having an effect.

Americans do not realize the kind of psychological conflict that existed in society at the time of the framers trying to form the concepts of this nation when it was new.

It was communicated successfully to the framers of Americas founding documents, by the Six Nations Iroqouis Confederacy, but specifically the Seneca. The framers had to fight a psychological war with infiltrators from the English crown in the ranks of the powerful and influential also demanding a role in creating the framing documents. The tories were actually paying people with gold, secretly, to oppose the framers publicly regarding certain concepts. They would coach them in HOW to provides some rational for the opposition they were paid to provide.* There was intense competition for inclusion/exclusion of concept in the proposed documents.* In that competition an entire doctrine of the First Nations was fragmented and the notion of free speech was separated from the rest of the concepts of the doctrine.

The entire doctrine undoubtably was deemed too long and too philosophical to be included in the Declaration of Independence by the torys working to weaken the new nations founding philosophical and legal precepts, so "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was broken off from the rest of the "Greater Meaning" for inclusion in the Declaration of Independence.

The complete concept of the greater meaning of free speech is as follows:

The "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" is or was, an actual, practiced philosophical doctrine by the Six Nations. The "meaning" is derived from an understanding that can come from the practice of free speech. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It should be abundantly clear to any thinking person that the ten principles BELONG together in the realm of philosophy, but in the Declaration, the last three are all that is found. That was the influence I mention diluting the philosophical meanings the documents were to carry. This was very important, because had those concepts been included, elements of society would have found ways to use them to compel government to support speech that conformed to that which was contained in the framing documents.

It actually happens or happened anyway. PBS, NPR and other institutions funded by government are, or were essentially manifesting some enablement for concepts quite similar to those in the Greater Meaning Of Free speech. The lack of it form 1776 onwards was responsible for the differences that led to the civil war.

I'm new here, so I certainly can't speak for the forum... but for speaking for myself, I haven't really commented on this thread because I haven't really figured out exactly what you're trying to say. It seems to me that you're suggesting the 9th Amendment is some sort of Constitutional self-destruct switch. We have the right to "alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"? I assume this supposed "right" extends to using extra-constitutional methods (ie, non-democratic) to accomplish it's ends. If so, I think you're misreading the scope of the 9th Amendment.

Cordelier said:

I'm new here, so I certainly can't speak for the forum... but for speaking for myself, I haven't really commented on this thread because I haven't really figured out exactly what you're trying to say. It seems to me that you're suggesting the 9th Amendment is some sort of Constitutional self-destruct switch. We have the right to "alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"? I assume this supposed "right" extends to using extra-constitutional methods (ie, non-democratic) to accomplish it's ends. If so, I think you're misreading the scope of the 9th Amendment.

Click to expand...

I would say that you have combined things that I'd not intended to combine nor did the constitution to conclude what you have.

The 9th is simple, it is the application of it that is not. Clearly majority action should be able to use it. That is democratic and constitutional.

Also clear is that the framers intended that the people have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. Then, the constitution makes Article V as an orderly way to after or abolish, but the states have the authority.

Article V states that when 3/4 of the states are amending from conventions within them, it is constitutional intent if all states are provided opportunity to vote.

Are you following?

Exactly where is the "self destruct switch" you mention?

ChrisABrown said:

I would say that you have combined things that I'd not intended to combine nor did the constitution to conclude what you have.

The 9th is simple, it is the application of it that is not. Clearly majority action should be able to use it. That is democratic and constitutional.

Also clear is that the framers intended that the people have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. Then, the constitution makes Article V as an orderly way to after or abolish, but the states have the authority.

Article V states that when 3/4 of the states are amending from conventions within them, it is constitutional intent if all states are provided opportunity to vote.

Are you following?

Exactly where is the "self destruct switch" you mention?

Click to expand...

You kind of threw me for a loop when you talked about altering or abolishing the government... when I mentioned a self-destruct switch, it was because altering or abolishing the government made me think of France. They had their revolution just after our's and now they're in their Fifth Republic... four times since the Revolution they have decided it was necessary to alter or abolish their government and thus end their republic. We're still in our first republic. If we invoked a supposed 9th Amendment "right" to alter or abolish the government, would that not also spell the end of our current republic?

If I'm reading you correctly, you see the 9th Amendment as a kind of parallel authority for individuals that Article V gives to States... but let's not forget that the First French Republic was ended by Napoleon, the Second French Republic was ended by Napoleon III, the Third French Republic was ended by Petain, and the Fourth French Republic was ended by De Gaulle. All individuals who took it upon themselves to alter and abolish their current government. Do you envision some future American version of Napoleon invoking the 9th Amendment to alter or abolish the government?

Cordelier said:

You kind of threw me for a loop when you talked about altering or abolishing the government... when I mentioned a self-destruct switch, it was because altering or abolishing the government made me think of France. They had their revolution just after our's and now they're in their Fifth Republic... four times since the Revolution they have decided it was necessary to alter or abolish their government and thus end their republic. We're still in our first republic. If we invoked a supposed 9th Amendment "right" to alter or abolish the government, would that not also spell the end of our current republic?

If I'm reading you correctly, you see the 9th Amendment as a kind of parallel authority for individuals that Article V gives to States... but let's not forget that the First French Republic was ended by Napoleon, the Second French Republic was ended by Napoleon III, the Third French Republic was ended by Petain, and the Fourth French Republic was ended by De Gaulle. All individuals who took it upon themselves to alter and abolish their current government. Do you envision some future American version of Napoleon invoking the 9th Amendment to alter or abolish the government?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

The 9th is for making sure government does NOT impair our adaptation by failing to recognize rights that are not listed, or not listed properly as in the case of free speech.

By ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, we simply end the deception and misleading of corporate media serving an oligarchy that ignores the principles of the republic. That has prevented democracy from functioning and the oligarchy has taken over politics unconstitutionally because people cannot have an informed opinion nor unity with it.

Then we can form the unity to properly purify our states, as the corporate oligarchy has corrupted them, then direct our states to amend the constitution to prevent the activities of the oligarchical control that are destructive to unalienable rights.

We have an awesome republic, and our constitution is near perfect. So near that it empowers us to perfect it!

And, because of the corruption a great deal of very serious problems have been created, therefore our adaptation, our survival and evolution require we amend the constitution which carries the principles of the republic.

Not rocket science by any means. In fact, 13 year children with a good education understand and accept these definitions of intent quickly and easily.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Only 2) uses the 9th, in order to assure 1). By ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, the people (see the 9th) use their authority through their states with Article 5, to assure all amendments have constitutional intent as Article 5 requires.

To clarify exactly HOW the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech is ended, I post this draft revision of the 1st Amendment.

---REV. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution---

The states will have to agree to amend their constitutions to be consistent and enforce reasonable access by the people to national broadcast media that is uncensored. That will only be done when it is consistent and supportive of the positive, higher human principles of the revised 1st amendment.

Only info about the destruction of unalienable rights that is currently not available to the people will qualify, or that which would be too costly for an individual to share with the nations people. Also information vital to constitutional defense. Broadcast corporations will have a proper way to question the invokation of the PURPOSE of free speech through the courts, which will be made constitutional again, and will be compensated by credits of taxation for the expense required to produce quality productions that the people will watch.

This is no more than a refinement of the intent of the current PBS and NPR.

ChrisABrown said:

Curious how Americans seem acutely aware of the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That being to protect the unalienable right to life; either by warding off direct threat, defending the nation from invasion, or hunting food, or, in the worst case, perhaps dealing with a government that becomes destructive to unalienable rights, when all other remedy has failed.

Click to expand...

How amusing the the second being " to protect the unalienable right to life. " And then giving examples of how to kill. It would sem this is another good example of how some americans only consider there own individual rights and if it comes at the expense of denying others right to life then no big deal. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of inalienable before using it.

But, what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?

The Declaration of Independence defines a right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, then the constitution, law, grants a right to a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, Article 5. But that is done by the states. Meaning the people must have the unity required to control their state legislations through democratic majority with the right of redress of grievance, and direct them to form conventions proposing amendment.

So we arrive at the obvious ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish through Article 5. And, clearly, the 9th Amendment.

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

Obviously, the 9th must include that unlisted PURPOSE for the right to freedom of speech, because without the unity of the people required, the constitution cannot be enforced, and may end as the supreme law of the land. So therein, the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to protect unalienable rights, which is consistent with the 2nd AMD, because with Article 5, the act of altering or abolishing can be done peacefully and orderly, which is the a prime intent of the constitution. With that considered, the 1st Amendment is deficient, which appears to have led to a great weakness in the people

Accordingly, states Citizens, must create consensus upon definition and newly list a right, in majorities and assert that upon their state legislations to form conventions to propose amendment to the constitution.

Some may think congress has the role of this, but congress is amiss in their duty, and will do no such thing. In which case, Article 5 reads to empower 3/4 of the states to define such intent for the constitution. Therefore it is up to the people to create a majority in 3/4 of the states that define that right, which is not listed and not to be denied or disparaged.

I would suggest that simple language like this will work well.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.


Whereas 1), connects to historical intent, and 2) enables that intent.

Click to expand...

And yet you have a form of governance that quite obviously works on the divide and conquer principle. No wonder you constitution belongs in a museum.

ChrisABrown said:

Not at all.

The 9th is for making sure government does NOT impair our adaptation by failing to recognize rights that are not listed, or not listed properly as in the case of free speech.

By ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, we simply end the deception and misleading of corporate media serving an oligarchy that ignores the principles of the republic. That has prevented democracy from functioning and the oligarchy has taken over politics unconstitutionally because people cannot have an informed opinion nor unity with it.

Then we can form the unity to properly purify our states, as the corporate oligarchy has corrupted them, then direct our states to amend the constitution to prevent the activities of the oligarchical control that are destructive to unalienable rights.

We have an awesome republic, and our constitution is near perfect. So near that it empowers us to perfect it!

And, because of the corruption a great deal of very serious problems have been created, therefore our adaptation, our survival and evolution require we amend the constitution which carries the principles of the republic.

Not rocket science by any means. In fact, 13 year children with a good education understand and accept these definitions of intent quickly and easily.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Only 2) uses the 9th, in order to assure 1). By ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, the people (see the 9th) use their authority through their states with Article 5, to assure all amendments have constitutional intent as Article 5 requires.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Chris... but I'm still not understanding your argument here. You feel the courts have misinterpreted the 1st Amendment and so you are invoking the 9th Amendment to claim a right to replace court decisions with your own interpretation?? Is that what you're saying?

Cordelier said:

I'm sorry, Chris... but I'm still not understanding your argument here. You feel the courts have misinterpreted the 1st Amendment and so you are invoking the 9th Amendment to claim a right to replace court decisions with your own interpretation?? Is that what you're saying?

Click to expand...

Courts are not mentioned in the 9th amendment, the people are. We, as a majority have more authority than the courts and essentially have the right to DEFINE rights not listed. No where are courts given that authority.

It does not have anything to do with what I'm saying. Like Lincon said in 18959, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court".

Are you saying there is something wrong with this concept fully supported by the constitution? Are you trying to deny or disparage this right to define rights not listed but retained?

ChrisABrown said:

Courts are not mentioned in the 9th amendment, the people are. We, as a majority have more authority than the courts and essentially have the right to DEFINE rights not listed. No where are courts given that authority.

It does not have anything to do with what I'm saying. Like Lincon said in 18959, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court".

Are you saying there is something wrong with this concept fully supported by the constitution? Are you trying to deny or disparage this right to define rights not listed but retained?

Click to expand...

You can make a claim to having a right under the terms of the 9th Amendment, but for that claim to have any legal validity, you have to get a court to rule in your favor... wouldn't you agree? We're a nation of laws, not of men and as such, the rights we hold true have to be consistent with the law.

As far as the 9th Amendment goes, I would say that it obviously gives scope for the existence of unenumerated rights... but it'd be a gross overreach to take it as a blank check for any unenumerated right you can dream up. If you want to make a constitutionally valid argument for the existence of a specific unenumerated right, then I would say that you have to first make a legal case for it's existence. To make such a legal case, you have to clearly define the right you wish to assert and explain how the enumerated rights in the first 8 Amendments can be combined to legitimately argue for the existence of the new unenumerated right.

Even if I don't quite understand your First Amendment argument, I do understand that you feel it gives scope for your argument. Fair enough.... but the First Amendment has literally been the subject of a multitude of rulings of the Supreme Court over the years, and I can't think of any of them which support your interpretation. So the First Amendment isn't enough to make your case... you need to combine it with another right granted by the Constitution before you can start to make a case. A 9th Amendment right can only exist as a hybrid of other rights.

Cordelier said:

You can make a claim to having a right under the terms of the 9th Amendment, but for that claim to have any legal validity, you have to get a court to rule in your favor... wouldn't you agree? We're a nation of laws, not of men and as such, the rights we hold true have to be consistent with the law.

As far as the 9th Amendment goes, I would say that it obviously gives scope for the existence of unenumerated rights... but it'd be a gross overreach to take it as a blank check for any unenumerated right you can dream up. If you want to make a constitutionally valid argument for the existence of a specific unenumerated right, then I would say that you have to first make a legal case for it's existence. To make such a legal case, you have to clearly define the right you wish to assert and explain how the enumerated rights in the first 8 Amendments can be combined to legitimately argue for the existence of the new unenumerated right.

Even if I don't quite understand your First Amendment argument, I do understand that you feel it gives scope for your argument. Fair enough.... but the First Amendment has literally been the subject of a multitude of rulings of the Supreme Court over the years, and I can't think of any of them which support your interpretation. So the First Amendment isn't enough to make your case... you need to combine it with another right granted by the Constitution before you can start to make a case. A 9th Amendment right can only exist as a hybrid of other rights.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, and do you have an opinion about the court's invocation of the 9th in that case?

Thoreau72 said:

Are you familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, and do you have an opinion about the court's invocation of the 9th in that case?

Click to expand...

I am, and I agree with the decision (especially Goldberg's concurring opinion)... if we don't have a right to privacy - privacy in our homes, in our relationships, and over our own bodies.... then what rights do we have? Free speech, gun ownership and all the rest are pretty hollow consolations if you don't even have domain over yourself.

Cordelier said:

You can make a claim to having a right under the terms of the 9th Amendment, but for that claim to have any legal validity, you have to get a court to rule in your favor...

Click to expand...

Lol, courts are not laws, and there is no law stating that the 9th is subject to the ruling of a court. This is particularly true when a majority asserts their definition of a right.

This is not me, this is the American people. Try to make that distinction.

Any right a Citizen can dream up that does not violate and existing right falls fairly under the 9th Amendment.

Cordelier said:

A 9th Amendment right can only exist as a hybrid of other rights.

Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say that?

ChrisABrown said:

Lol, courts are not laws, and there is no law stating that the 9th is subject to the ruling of a court. This is particularly true when a majority asserts their definition of a right.

This is not me, this is the American people. Try to make that distinction.

Any right a Citizen can dream up that does not violate and existing right falls fairly under the 9th Amendment.



Where does the constitution say that?

Click to expand...

Separation of powers, Chris... Article III invests the judicial power of the US in the Supreme Court. Interpreting the Constitution falls within the scope of judicial power. It's also a function of the judiciary to act as a safeguard of individual rights against any possible tyranny of the majority. Case in point... during the red scares of the 1950's, the majority of the population was willing to do anything to safeguard against communism. This fact was exacerbated by demagogues like Joe McCarthy and was embodied in legislation like the Smith Act. Should it have been illegal to be a member of the Communist party? The majority of the population would have undoubtedly answered "yes".... First Amendment be damned. Disagree with the majority, and you're just another pinko. The Supreme Court is the only institution that can protect individuals from such tyranny.

As for 9th Amendment rights only existing as penumbras of the numerated rights, that's a product of Supreme Court rulings, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut, as has been discussed. When the Bill of Rights was written, they included as list of the rights they considered to be important. The 9th Amendment states that this list isn't exhaustive... that unenumerated rights also exist. So how do we go about discovering such rights and still stay true to the text of the Constitution? The Court has ruled that 9th Amendment rights have to be rooted within the rights granted by the Constitution, ie, the penumbras that exist between two or more of the enumerated rights. What's the alternative? To make up rights out of thin air without reference to the Constitution itself??

Cordelier said:

I am, and I agree with the decision (especially Goldberg's concurring opinion)... if we don't have a right to privacy - privacy in our homes, in our relationships, and over our own bodies.... then what rights do we have? Free speech, gun ownership and all the rest are pretty hollow consolations if you don't even have domain over yourself.

Click to expand...

So then, would it be appropriate to say that rather in the old common law tradition, the court 'discovered' some new law, a new right, by way of the wisdom of those who wrote the Ninth?

Other than certain procedural rights, the constitution doesn't really GRANT rights, it does however GUARANTEE rights.

Cordelier said:

Separation of powers, Chris... Article III invests the judicial power of the US in the Supreme Court. Interpreting the Constitution falls within the scope of judicial power.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the court can only interpret the cobstitution, the people can define it.

Thoreau72 said:

So then, would it be appropriate to say that rather in the old common law tradition, the court 'discovered' some new law, a new right, by way of the wisdom of those who wrote the Ninth?

Other than certain procedural rights, the constitution doesn't really GRANT rights, it does however GUARANTEE rights.

Click to expand...

I kind of look at rights like open range... before the white man settled on the continent, there were no fences... vast herds of buffalo roamed from horizon to horizon and the land was owned by no man. But then we came along with our property laws and surveying tools and we mapped the land and divided it up and put up barbed wire. Now your land was defined... it gave the individual ownership of his or her section, but it also limited their range. The rights guaranteed by the first 8 Amendments are like that... they're clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They're your's and mine. But by spelling them out and putting them down on paper, it means that their range is also limited. There always have to be boundaries.

The Ninth Amendment is the constitutional "open range" that still exists out there. It hasn't been surveyed yet. But any good surveyor will tell you that if you want to survey and fence out a piece of land, you can only do it in reference to fixed datums. You need to know the longitude and latitude of your starting point, and where the boundaries lie in relation to the properties that have already been fenced off. Without these references, any land claims you make are just shouts in desolate winds of terra incognita.

ChrisABrown said:

Exactly, the court can only interpret the cobstitution, the people can define it.

Click to expand...

The people have defined it by writing it, amending it, and ratifying it. After that, it's up to the courts to interpret it's meaning.

Cordelier said:

The people have defined it by writing it, amending it, and ratifying it. After that, it's up to the courts to interpret it's meaning.

Click to expand...

Then if the people do not like the interpretation they redefine it and the courts have no lawful option except change their interpretation. You've failed to show they have any other lawful course.

Cordelier said:

. What's the alternative? To make up rights out of thin air without reference to the Constitution itself??

Click to expand...

And these are from the intent of the constitution itself and you've not shown otherwise.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Cordelier said:

I kind of look at rights like open range... before the white man settled on the continent, there were no fences... vast herds of buffalo roamed from horizon to horizon and the land was owned by no man. But then we came along with our property laws and surveying tools and we mapped the land and divided it up and put up barbed wire. Now your land was defined... it gave the individual ownership of his or her section, but it also limited their range. The rights guaranteed by the first 8 Amendments are like that... they're clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They're your's and mine. But by spelling them out and putting them down on paper, it means that their range is also limited. There always have to be boundaries.

The Ninth Amendment is the constitutional "open range" that still exists out there. It hasn't been surveyed yet. But any good surveyor will tell you that if you want to survey and fence out a piece of land, you can only do it in reference to fixed datums. You need to know the longitude and latitude of your starting point, and where the boundaries lie in relation to the properties that have already been fenced off. Without these references, any land claims you make are just shouts in desolate winds of terra incognita.

Click to expand...

That is a fair analogy, surveying land and establishing boundaries. Indeed, the constitution prescribes specific boundaries within which the government shall act, and beyond which it is not authorized.

In the spirit of the Ninth and Tenth, it seems to me letting the government be the arbiter of what the rights of man really and actually are is somehow an error.

ChrisABrown said:

Then if the people do not like the interpretation they redefine it and the courts have no lawful option except change their interpretation. You've failed to show they have any other lawful course.

Click to expand...

Absolutely... but that has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment. The Constitutional amending formula is covered by Article V.

ChrisABrown said:

And these are from the intent of the constitution itself and you've not shown otherwise.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

Click to expand...

Again, there is already provision in the Constitution to change the government... they're called elections.

If you're talking about changing the government through non-democratic means, then I'd have to say that such actions would be entirely unconstitutional. As I said before, the 9th Amendment isn't the Constitution's self-destruct switch.

Thoreau72 said:

That is a fair analogy, surveying land and establishing boundaries. Indeed, the constitution prescribes specific boundaries within which the government shall act, and beyond which it is not authorized.

In the spirit of the Ninth and Tenth, it seems to me letting the government be the arbiter of what the rights of man really and actually are is somehow an error.

Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with you if we all lived in isolation... but we don't. We live in a world where your rights bump up against my rights. If we both lay claim to the same piece of land, then what option is there besides seeking arbitration from the courts? In the final analysis, we have a choice between living in a world where right makes might or one where might makes right.