It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"What Does the Ninth Amendment Have to do With Individual Rights?"

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
For extra income, I tutor college level students in their classes. I have a client who was struggling through his history class when he finally turned to me. He turned to me because he was frustrated with the fact that he was doing so poorly when he knew full well he was bright and capable of much more than his grade was reflecting. As I listened to his frustrations, and complaints, it was clear that what he was struggling with was the indoctrination being shoved down his throat. This is often the case with the clients I tutor.

His grades are now improving, mostly because I have taught him how to navigate the system, and how to firmly pinch his nose while he answers on tests the odious answers that are clearly expected as answers, so the stench doesn't make him gag. However, because he waited until mid-semester to seek out a tutor, his vast improvement has not been enough to get him the A he really wants. I recommended he ask for extra credit assignments. The history professor agreed to this and had him write an essay. My client wrote an essay on States Rights versus Individual Rights, making the assertion that states rights have no validity unless individual rights do. To place states rights above individual rights, as my client argued, was to put the cart before the horse.

This essay agitated his professor to no end, and his professor wrote a poorly crafted criticism of his paper. There were many grammatical errors and misspellings in this criticism written by a college professor, but alarmingly he asked his student what the Ninth Amendment had to do with individual rights?

l leave it to my esteemed colleagues here in ATS to answer this question. What does the Ninth Amendment have to do with individual rights?




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Text of the Amendment :
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" meaning that any rights given to the people in the doc shall not be infringed and prohibits others from denying said rights to all people who are under it's jurisdiction.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If you ask certain people that lean a certain way, this amendment is illegible. However, if you have the reading skills of an 8th grader, the 9th amendment says that certain rights outlined (enumerated, or detailed) in the Constitution can not override (shall not be construed or disparage) any other rights retained by humans.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
It had always seemed to me is that one cannot use one of his own rights to deny the right of another. This not only means that the State right cannot deny an individual right, nor can the individual right of an individual, or group of individuals be used to deny an individual right of another individual or group of individuals.
edit on 6-6-2011 by stonergeek because: grammar edit



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

its saying the list of "certain rights" shouldn't be read in a way ,to be used, to deny or lessen the rights of others
edit on 6-6-2011 by CaDreamer because: typo


kind of reads like a legal disclaimer...
edit on 6-6-2011 by CaDreamer because: side thought



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.


But when your right threatens either the liberty, right of another or the threatens the nation itself that is not allowed. Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another along racial, religious grounds.
edit on 6-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I don't immediately perceive where the Ninth Amendment is applicable to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the people collectively.

To paraphrase, it merely says, "The list of rights enumerated earlier was not all-inclusive. That list does not imply that those are the only rights of the people; and that list may not be used for the purpose of limiting rights that may be later asserted."

Perhaps if the paper in question were presented to ATS, then we could discuss whether the ideas seem realistic....



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I don't immediately perceive where the Ninth Amendment is applicable to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the people collectively.

To paraphrase, it merely says, "The list of rights enumerated earlier was not all-inclusive. That list does not imply that those are the only rights of the people; and that list may not be used for the purpose of limiting rights that may be later asserted."

Perhaps if the paper in question were presented to ATS, then we could discuss whether the ideas seem realistic....


It says clearly that the way you choose to use your rights shall not infringe upon the rights of another.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.


No.

This amendment is based on the concept that GOVERNMENT cannot assume for itself the power to deny rights held by the people by the enumeration of the Bill of Rights nor can it deny rights not specifically cited in the Constitution.

For instance, the government cannot tell you that when you sleep you must lie on your left side. The Constitutional Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights necessary to protect liberty and promote stability in society as well as protect the unwritten and unspoken rights.

Which I believe are things like what you eat, how you sleep, who you sleep with and marry, what TYPE of Arms you can carry so forth and so on. The tenth amendment is similar in function though it's wording limits the Federal Government from doing anything outside of the power it holds as enumerated in the Constitution and lays it on the state and people respectively..
edit on 6-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxNormal
Your individual rights are never above the rights of the whole. You do not have the right to do anything if it violates the rights of the group/whole/county/state/country.


Respectfully, you have it backwards. A collective cannot exist without individuals, but conversely individuals can and do exist without collectives. Collectivism is a most dangerous ideology that has insinuated itself into American jurisprudence, and unfortunately done much to undermine the rights of the individual. Hence, we have a history professor asking in all seriousness what the Ninth Amendment has to do with individual rights.

There is a reason the Ninth Amendment comes before the Tenth Amendment and it is not just because the number nine comes before ten. Individual rights come before collective rights. The logical and just foundation of government begins with an individuals right to self defense. If I have the right to self defense, and you have the right to self defense, and TOA has the right to self defense, and stonergeek has that right, and TheImaculate has that right, and projectvxn has this right, then it follows that we all have the right to collectively come together and form an organization to work towards that same end. This does not, however, mean we have surrendered our individual rights in order to do so.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 




Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another.


Explain to me how hate speech infringes upon the rights of others? Hate speech is just that: hateful speech. It does not harm anyone physically, will not harm anyone emotionally upon refusing to hear such speech, and does not affect their overall welfare as an individual capable of pursuing their own self-interests. While I will agree with the argument that hate-speech is collectivist, deplorable, and downright shameful, banning any form of speech is unconstitutional and inherently unjust.

Racism, as terrible as it is, cannot possibly be banned. You cannot force an individual's thoughts to be pure or acceptable. Until people start to realize that individuals are autonomous beings separate in their uniqueness and capability, racism will always persist.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
so the 9th ammendment protects from class warfare.

is my take.

robbing peter to pay paul is a violation of the us constitution.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 





I don't immediately perceive where the Ninth Amendment is applicable to individual rights, as opposed to the rights of the people collectively.


In order to come to this determination, then it implicitly means that people only have the right to speech collectively and not individually. It means people only have the right to worship collectively and not individually. It means that people only have the right "press" collectively and not individually, and it means that people only have the right to seek a redress of grievances collectively and not individually. It also means, which many collectivists actively argue - including the ACLU - that people do not have the right to keep and bear arms individually but only collectively.

It is a flawed premise. Individuals do indeed posses rights. The Ninth Amendment is speaking to them, not collectives, that is what the 10th Amendment is doing.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"


I always read this to mean that the list of rights in the Bill of Rights in not an all inclusive list of all the rights retained by the people. Trying to list all of the inalienable rights of Man would be an impossible and daunting task; the document would be thousands of pages long and would inevitably leave out something important. It would also give people the impression that their rights were handed down to them from the government (Who would ever get that idea?
)

The list of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were deemed to be the most important to ensure the political freedoms of the people and the most likely to be infringed upon by the government. They are in no way a complete list of all the rights held by the people.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 




Hence why hate speech and racism should be banned because hate speech infringes upon the rights of another.


Explain to me how hate speech infringes upon the rights of others? Hate speech is just that: hateful speech. It does not harm anyone physically, will not harm anyone emotionally upon refusing to hear such speech, and does not affect their overall welfare as an individual capable of pursuing their own self-interests. While I will agree with the argument that hate-speech is collectivist, deplorable, and downright shameful, banning any form of speech is unconstitutional and inherently unjust.

Racism, as terrible as it is, cannot possibly be banned. You cannot force an individual's thoughts to be pure or acceptable. Until people start to realize that individuals are autonomous beings separate in their uniqueness and capability, racism will always persist.


Hate leads towards riling people up with lead to insults which leads to acts of physical violence upon another which is how it infringes upon another. The Constitution does not protect racism as no one has the right to spew hate rhetoric upon another. This particular one shall always be rooted in reality, common sense and logic and shall never be spun to spew racism while hiding behind the doc itself.
edit on 6-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 





Hate leads towards riling people up with lead to insults which leads to acts of physical violence upon another which is how it infringes upon another.


With all due respect you are advocating positive law in the form of preventative action. Hate in and of itself is not a crime. A crime demands a victim - actual disparagement of a right - and without a victim there is no crime. Tolerance can often lead to crimes as well, should we ban tolerance?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.usconstitution.net...



This Amendment, it seems to me, says that any number of certain rights, should not be used, that they single out other rights, retained the people, and disparage those rights.

The rights given to us, and guaranteed us, in the Constitution were not meant to be used against each other to ensure one citizens rights over another’s. Or one group, or one political party and so on……



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I'm going to go with,
My right's not greater than your right's not greater than their rights and we have the right to defend our rights.
I am right, correct?
edit on 6-6-2011 by HappilyEverAfter because: stet



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The "enumeration" in the constitution of...
(The fact that "we" are singling out...)
certain rights...
(specific rights....)
shall not be construed...
(does not mean...)
to deny or disparage
(the government should sanction or otherwise criminalize....)
others retained..
(rights not enumerated ...)
by the people.
(but protected by this constitution for the benefit of a free people.)

Seems pretty clear to me. If you are talking about "the people" you can't be talking about government, or a collective group, or LAW. You are talking about people, individuals that make up "people".



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join