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

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
I'm going to go with,
My right's not greater than your right's not greater than their right's and we have the right to defend our rights.
I am right, correct?

Lol! The judges will accept that answer! Don, tell HappilyEverAfter what prizes we have for him.

The people, which means every individual, at all times hold the inherent political power, and any just power governments hold, the people hold as well. The power flows directly from the people. However, in terms of rights, these are not ideas that are voted upon, they are natural phenomenon that exist and all creatures great and small posses them.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
I'm going to go with,
My right's not greater than your right's not greater than their right's and we have the right to defend our rights.
I am right, correct?

Lol! The judges will accept that answer! Don, tell HappilyEverAfter what prizes we have for him.

The people, which means every individual, at all times hold the inherent political power, and any just power governments hold, the people hold as well. The power flows directly from the people. However, in terms of rights, these are not ideas that are voted upon, they are natural phenomenon that exist and all creatures great and small posses them.

Yes JPZ, and it is the state presenting itself as an entity, a singular being, and doing so over a period of time where as to go un-noticed, and becoming more powerful than true individuals, that scares the living crap out of me.

(thanks for the prizes by the way)

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
This means that just because certain rights were enumerated in amendments one through eight of the Bill of Rights does not mean that those are the only rights retained by the people (individuals). It was put there to prevent the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other) from being used at a later time to deny individual rights to people based on the fact that they were not included in the Bill of Rights so therefore they are not guaranteed to the people. One must remember that the original Bill of Rights was more about restraining government to ensure personal liberty than anything else.

reply to post by jafo1984

One must remember that the original Bill of Rights was more about restraining government to ensure personal liberty than anything else.

It is all about restraining government. This is such an important aspect, that in my opinion is purposely misconstrued by academic institutions these days so that people are being indoctrinated to believe that the Bill of Rights is a grant of rights to people. There is nothing in the language of those Amendments to support that contention. The language is express in its prohibitive nature, and it is tyranny that it is prohibiting.

Originally posted by jafo1984
...does not mean that those are the only rights retained by the people (individuals)...

That is the simplest explanation needed.

I believe the framers' intent was to specifically delineate those rights which, under the Crown, had been repeatedly attacked and were held most dear to the "people" at the time. Also, they were fully aware that some nimrod would attempt to claim those were the only rights the people possessed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is all about restraining government.

That phrase can not be repeated enough times. Particularly to those who, earlier in the thread, called for the prohibition of speech of which they don't approve.

I think that when one is talking about "rights" of a free people, it should be mentioned that there are "duties" of a free people as well.
We can complain that our rights are eroding, but it is our duty to defend those rights.
INDIVIDUALLY.

reply to post by WTFover

I believe the framers' intent was to specifically delineate those rights which, under the Crown, had been repeatedly attacked and were held most dear to the "people" at the time. Also, they were fully aware that some nimrod would attempt to claim those were the only rights the people possessed.

Yes, my friend, you are correct. James Madison introduced the Ninth Amendment, which not a word was changed in its passage, in direct response to those wise men who were concerned about nimrod's (a plethora of which exist in government and academia today) who would attempt to frame those Bill of Rights as jaffo1984 eruditely pointed out; "expressio unius est exclusio alterius".

Originally posted by Stewie
I think that when one is talking about "rights" of a free people, it should be mentioned that there are "duties" of a free people as well.
We can complain that our rights are eroding, but it is our duty to defend those rights.
INDIVIDUALLY.

Yes sir, and thank you for reminding us all that we are obligated to jealously guard our rights, and zealously defend them. Constant vigilance is imperative. Would that vigilance had been taken seriously the past hundred years or so, it is arguable we wouldn't be facing such an intrusive government today.

Do what you will, but harm ye none. Wow, I am agnostic, but have studied many different belief systems, and this is how the amendment struck me. For those of those not so educated, that is the primary belief of Wicca.

Originally posted by Stewie
I think that when one is talking about "rights" of a free people, it should be mentioned that there are "duties" of a free people as well...

I agree that is is our duty to "support and defend the constitution" (not the government, as they are not one and the same), but first among the responsibilities or duties of a free people is to educate themselves as to what those rights are and what restrictions were placed on government. Much of our education system does little or nothing to teach students that their rights are something they were born with, instead they are led to believe that our rights are merely privileges extended to us by our benevolent government. Without the understanding that the government is withholding from you something that you were born with you will not have a strong conviction that you need to defend those rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

No, I don't believe that is correct. Not that it's not true, but that it doesn't accurately reflect what this particular amendment expresses. I believe that if Madison had intended to say "the individual" he was perfectly capable of making that distinction. But he didn't. He said "the people."

Madison's genius was in saying quite economically what he meant; and I believe that this is an example of that. Again, not that the collective "the people" doesn't also and necessarily include all of its individuals, but that that was not the thrust of this particular amendment.

Please don't throw me into the bin with the idiot professor. But I just happen to agree with him (in this one respect only)....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Exactly what it says and means. you can not list all the rights we have as citizens. The bill of rights are just a short list and tells the government they can not infringe on them.

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."

What this phrase says to me is:

The enumerated rights of the Constitution shall not stop or hinder anyone from exercising other rights they may have granted by the states.

The Constitution lists in the enumerated powers that those rights not outlined in the Constitution are reserved to the states and people. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment appears to be saying that while the Federal Constitution is the law of the land to be applied to any state, the Constitution is limited in that regard where people in states declare other rights.

I think the framers here were saying that they did not want the Federal government stepping in to States and Citizens affairs if the State or Citizens have declared themselves another additional right. Many State Constitutions have additional rights, not declared in the Federal Constitution.

Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

Source : caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Exactly what it says and means. you can not list all the rights we have as citizens. The bill of rights are just a short list and tells the government they can not infringe on them.

You may be missing my point. What you just said is exactly what I said in an earlier post. My only argument with the OP is that Madison wrote "the people," not "the individual." Had he meant to write an amendment concerning the people as individuals, that's what he would have done. But that's not what THIS amendment says.

hmmmm

people meaning a group of individuals and not people as a collective

no ones right superceeds any others right and no groups rights supperceds any others by each other or its government.

seems to me if that is correct and the constitution was actually followed alot of this nations problems would be non existent.

gay marriage,healthcare,second ammendment etc would be non issues.

or have i got that totally wrong.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

Sir, I withdraw my exception to your statements. I realize now that we are arguing semantics--"the meaning of meaning," as it were.

I submit. You are right.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

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)

How does "hate speech" or speech of any kind infringe on the rights of others?
I could use a definition of hate speech too if you have one.

When Jean-Paul first presented this notion of a professor asking, nay, stating "What does the Ninth Amendment have to do with individual rights" I was quite taken back.

It was a belief of many of the framers the the Constitution itself did not need a bill of rights because as others have pointed out, it was a limiting document upon the new government it formed. It was not a document directed towards the people. Hamilton wrote upon the subject in Federalist Paper's 84.

He states "...in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They [Bills of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

Amongst those that thought the Constitution not directed at the People, but rather the projection of the People's political power upon the Government agreed. Hamilton continues with an explanation upon why such Bills of Rights would be "unnecessary". He continues by stating "Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

This leads exactly to his next point; that being declaring such within the Constitution, such as the Right to Free Press would suggest the new Federal Government has some sort of regulatory powers over it. He contended that the Constitution itself was in fact a Bill of Rights in its own.

Reason being is that since the powers were not delegated towards Congress to limit speech, it therefore is retained to the People or the several States. It was also held that the Constitution "is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."

Madison was not only in this initial assertion on the dangers of a Bill of Rights. Madison, who penned a large portion of the Bill of Rights knew very well the dangers that such Bills of Rights would lead to. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison states "..provided that it [Bills of Rights] be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration."

He knew the dangers of listing certain rights under the Constitution and how they would be construed by the seats of power as enumerations of power rather than protections of the Peoples' rights. Enter the Ninth Amendment.

The fear of later governments seeing the Bill of Rights as a positive affirmation of rights to the People, Madison penned the Ninth Amendment. In this amendment he explains in as concise a manner as possible that what ever powers not enumerated to the Congress shall not be infringed upon by that very Congress. Since rights are not enumerated, they are retained by the People.

The Ninth Amendment provides every individual to exercise their rights they hold as they see fit. Notwithstanding such rights do not infringe upon the rights of others and the very basic principles declared within the Declaration of Independence; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This very notion is a scary thought to those that believe that the Individual is where the power lies in terms of community and government. It is their contention as some have stated here that those rights are collective. That the term "the People" does not infer an individual but rather all peoples. Such notions are dangerous in my opinion as it threatens other basic tenets we all enjoy. Private property rights, freedom to speak freely, to enter a contract at our own discretion, to travel, to smoke, to drink, to have sex with whomever and what ever positions we wish to engage those acts in.

If the Ninth Amendment applied to the collective, than the majority, in which the Framers were aptly aware of and cautious to empower would easily be able to infringe upon the rights of individuals in the name of the many. Such has already been taking place and mainly due to the ignorance of such concepts as the Ninth Amendment, individual rights, and their natural rights.

For example, someone who believes that we must apply the test of the Ninth Amendment to a group or collective of peoples easily have no problem in limiting their right to self-protection. Such a right, the right to self defense is a cornerstone of our natural rights. But in the name of safety (ironic I know), a collectivist sees no problem limiting the individual this very right to safety of their persons.

In the end I suppose Jean Paul you wish to know my view on what does the Ninth Amendment have to do with Individual rights and to that I say everything. It is the most forgotten, bastardized and side-step amendment of the Constitution. Yet it remains our most powerful tool against tyranny and oppression of our very rights that we lay claim to as an individual. The Ninth Amendment gives each individual the freedoms and rights they don't even think of as rights and their ability to practice them.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It also means that we have more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights, and just because they aren't listed doesn't make them any less valid than those that are. (layman's terms)