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

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Ahh, so when you refer to elderly people showing up and protesting as Nazi's that's cool.

But someone showing up to their own rally expressing views you and i don't like, that's not cool? You're saying you should ban the belief of, say, the neo nazi crowd right?

The Tea Party crowd isn't the neo-nazis. HOWEVER, if enough people like you call them hatemongers then it becomes true, whether it is or not...So you ban the Tea Party from having any political speech.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I am not an officer. I am enlisted thank you very much.

You can tell me and everyone that wears a military uniform to go straight to hell if you want to. You can also feel free to reveal all of the troop movements you want. You have to get that information first. But let's say you do. And you report on it. What do YOU think should happen to you?

Me? nothing. Operational Security is in the hands of the military, not the press.

So long as you're not passing this info to the enemy in a deliberate fashion you have nothing to worry about.

I am a staunch defender of y'all in uniform to the point where people here and others have said that y'all are terrorists and will not stand for anyone of y'all from getting demonized as y'all are fighting TPTB's war for them. No one is allowed to report troop locales and that is that, regardless if one works for US Dept. Of Defense or holds valid press credentials. That is just wrong.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I agree, it is very wrong.

But the DOD depends on policies of operational security to hide that information FROM journalists. Because THEY KNOW that some journalists WILL run the info on the evening news if given the opportunity. What happened with Geraldo Rivera was exactly that. Only people in the military, for the most part, understand the importance and nuance of operational security. Geraldo is just a guy who reports what he sees and the information he receives. OpSec is about keeping certain info from getting out. If you don't have the right policy in place, and if everyone isn't doing their part the information will get out.

There is NOTHING illegal about printing OpSec sensitive material. Or even classified material. It only becomes illegal if the person releasing the information is sworn to keep it secret, i.e. violating your security oath, or espionage, or outright treason.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Ahh, so when you refer to elderly people showing up and protesting as Nazi's that's cool.

But someone showing up to their own rally expressing views you and i don't like, that's not cool? You're saying you should ban the belief of, say, the neo nazi crowd right?

The Tea Party crowd isn't the neo-nazis. HOWEVER, if enough people like you call them hatemongers then it becomes true, whether it is or not...So you ban the Tea Party from having any political speech.

Remember the Wichita, Kansas protests last fall? A reporter claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers got on the phone with Gov. Walker who wanted to employ agent provaceteurs to incite violence at the Kansas protests and how TPTB were caight during the 2010 G8 in Ottawa trying to do the same? This is how one minute group could and has infringed upon the rights of another.

That is why our American revolution has gone viral exclusively to prevent these kinds of plants from occuring.

Everyone has the inaliable right to protest but we are all accountable for our actions. Wat about groups like the Westboro Baptist Church who says things like "Thank God for dead soldiers" and has the audacity to protest the funeral of soldiers, is that not a misuse of protest?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


WBC folks can use their free speech in any fashion they want. NO ONE agrees with them except maybe hard core anti gay people and anyone who actually hates the US military. But that doesn't matter. The Constitution protects even the smallest minorities in the expression of any speech they so desire. If the WBC wants to protest at my funeral when I die I will make sure there is lemonade and cookies for everyone. They'll need the energy when they're running from an angry mob of people.

The beauty of free speech is that you are free to say whatever you want. You are also free to deal with the consequences. If you go to Harlem and start yelling the N word you're not going to get a welcoming reception. You are free to do it, but the folks there might kick your teeth in. You'll have to deal with those consequences.

Inciting riots isn't free speech. Telling your cohorts to "storm the castle and burn it down" is an ORDER to commit violence. That touches on the grounds of terrorism.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Remember the Wichita, Kansas protests last fall? A reporter claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers got on the phone with Gov. Walker who wanted to employ agent provaceteurs to incite violence at the Kansas protests...

You see, this is a huge part of the problem with politics in the U.S. You have completely mischaracterized a situation, either in honest error or because you simply believed what someone else told you took place, without objectively looking at what actually happened.

Here is a transcript of the call made by a "blogger", acting as an agent provocateur, to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, regarding the union protests. www.jsonline.com... And the segment to which you referred is at 4:26 of this video

Read it yourself and then determine which of the two was being the dick. After reading that, listen to the segment of the video and decide if you think Walker was noticeably uncomfortable with the topic.

I was working on a project today that led me to some research regarding the fundamental right to sleep outdoors, which of course, has become increasingly a problem for both municipalities and the homeless. One ruling regarding this fundamental right was made by the 11th Circuit of Appeals. Here is part of what these clowns, (Judges Black, Carnes, and Kravitch) held:

Homeless persons are not a suspect class, nor is sleeping out-of-doors a fundamental right. See D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877, 879 n. 2 (11th Cir.1995) (homeless not a suspect class); Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242, 1269 n. 36 (3rd Cir.1992) (same); Davison v. City of Tucson, 924 F.Supp. 989, 993 (D.Ariz.1996) (same); Johnson v. City of Dallas, 860 F.Supp. 344, 355 (N.D.Tex.1994) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir.1995); Joyce v. City and County of San Francisco, 846 F.Supp. 843, 859 (N.D.Ca.1994) (declining to be the first court to recognize fundamental right to sleep), dismissed, 87 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir.1996); State of Hawaii v. Sturch, 82 Hawai'i 269, 921 P.2d 1170, 1176 (App.1996) (noting that there is "no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place" unless it is expressive conduct within the ambit of the First Amendment or is protected by other fundamental rights). But see Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F.Supp. 1551, 1578 (S.D.Fla.1992) (indicating in dicta that homeless might constitute a suspect class), remanded for limited purposes, 40 F.3d 1155 (11th Cir.1994), and directed to undertake settlement discussions, 76 F.3d 1154 (1996). Consequently, rational basis review is appropriate.

I call them clowns because they must have foregone their black robes and instead put on the white face makeup with the big red nose and in lieu of powdered wigs, put on rainbow colored wigs. How else can we explain their buffoonery? By what bit of logic do they determine that sleeping outdoors is not a fundamental right? Surely they must be ignorant to the fact that people have been sleeping outdoors long before the United States ever existed, and even before any governments existed, so it is jaw droppingly stupid to claim it is not a right. Yet they make the claim, and how do they make their determination?

"no authority supporting a specific constitutional right to sleep in a public place"

That's correct, in order to make this determination, the 11th Circus of Appalling Stupidity decided that there is no enumerated right to sleep outdoors, so their must be no fundamental right to sleep outdoors. Willfully ignoring not just the Ninth Amendment, but in this case Section 21 of Article I - The Declaration of Rights - of the Constitution for the State of Hawaii, which echoes the Ninth Amendment, which means they were not only in gross error in reaching their determination, they acted unlawfully and most assuredly denied and disparaged peoples rights by insisting that the right to sleep must be specifically enumerated in order to be recognized by the courts.

Of course, I suppose it never occurred to the 11th Circus of Appalling Stupidity that there is no specific authority enumerating the right to sleep indoors either. Perhaps, they being clowns and constantly pulling each others fingers, it has occurred to them that there is no enumerated right granting people the right to fart! They think they have no Constitutional right to fart, but being the scoundrels and scofflaws that they are, pull each others fingers, giggling like little boys and girls all the way.

Sigh.

Well, I'm new here at this site and pretty much just getting my feet in the water, so I'll appreciate any considerations of such by seasoned members and staff. As far as I'm concerned, collective rights must emerge from individual rights. Such is a concept which I argue is inextricably linked to liberty. That is to say, when we start first with the proposition that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, as well as other Constitutional rights such as expression and assembly, such is the foundation for understanding how those rights apply to groups of people. Perhaps one of the most tragic example of collective rights--as conceived as being as being whatever advocates arbitrarily deem them be, would be that of unions in terms of their political inclinations.

If we take the position that a man has the right to attempt to petition his employer for higher wages or superior working conditions, such is a starting point. A union, that is a group of individuals representing their combined interests, should have the same ability. Yet in our day especially, what has emerged is a sort of mob mentality among some union workers, wherein collectively they somehow represent a thing greater than their individual component parts.

Here, it is supposed that because the union is larger numerically than the numbers of employers at a given firm, that somehow the strength in their numbers gives them the "right" to get government to force employers to give the union members wage raises above market value, etc. The key here, as I see it, is government--which is a third party--conveying privileges to people in the name of "rights" at the expense of other people's individual rights.

Personally I do not oppose one or a hundred, or even a thousand workers demanding wage increases or threatening to leave the particular firm. In this I cannot find anything which would conflict with individual rights. The workers are free to quit if they wish, or haggle the employer more benefits. But such arrangements are to be worked out between those two parties alone, not by government.

What we have today is a plethora of "rights." Notions such as the "right to a living wage" which are intellectually dishonest, are, I believe, part and parcel of this vision. Whatever is held as desirable by a certain group becomes a "right" while the definition of "rights" gradually expands to the point of absurdity. Such is no longer a framework for and law and order, but only for a vague conceptions of rights meaning whatever we want them to mean. It becomes a matter of Cooked Goose syndrome, and makes mockery out of rights.

Yet this same concept applies, though in somewhat different ways, to states versus individual rights. The crux of the problem, as I see it, is nearly a century of judicial activism at the state and federal levels which has sought to confer the rights of individuals upon the states, while denying more and more the individual rights properly belonging to the individuals themselves.

reply to post by PersianEmpire

Yet this same concept applies, though in somewhat different ways, to states versus individual rights. The crux of the problem, as I see it, is nearly a century of judicial activism at the state and federal levels which has sought to confer the rights of individuals upon the states, while denying more and more the individual rights properly belonging to the individuals themselves.

Welcome to this site, PE, and thank you for taking the time to enter this thread and post. While judicial activism can be, and indeed is a problem, that activism is tantamount to a defanged and declawed tiger when compared to the Congressional and Executive activism that has year after year out paced the judiciary rewriting the Tortoise and the Hare so that in the end the Hare finishes the race a champion years before the tortoise even reaches the finish line.

Further, much of this judicial activism has been facilitated by the laity of the priest class lawyer set. That laity fairly constitutes the vast majority of the people. While ignorantia juris non excusat remains a revered common law principle in the courts today, far too many people are ignorant of the law, and allow themselves to be baffled with bull and imprudently confuse this baffling bull as dazzling brilliance.

People allow lawyers to make arguments on their behalf, without even understanding what those arguments mean let alone the ramifications of making the arguments. Take that combined with the fact that lawyers are licensed attorneys who have sworn a fealty to the state, it really should come as no surprise that these lawyers are ignoring the Ninth Amendment and instead subjecting their clients to the 14th Amendment and all that implies.

In that regard, much of the judicial activism is actually a direct result of ignorant defendants, and/or plaintiff's sitting idly by as the priest class lawyer set, which includes judges, utter their mystifying incantations.

Only when each of us, as individuals, learn the law - which is far simpler to learn than any lawyer would have you believe - will we come anywhere close to having protected rights by the courts. Learn that law, and regardless of the mysticism the priest class engage in, these priests know the law too, and recognize when they are confronted with it.

The only way past "legality" is by way of the law.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

Here is a question for you...do you believe having a say in who your representative is, should be a right and not a privilege?

The term "representative" demands such, does it not? This is why originally "Representatives" were termed as such, and in this bicameral legislative body, "Senators" were termed as such, because until the passage of the odious 17th Amendment, Senators were not elected by popular election, but instead were chosen by state legislatures.

I do understand your point about voting rights not being a right. But there is also the right to life, yet we put people to death for crimes.

Arguably cruel and unusual punishment. At this moment, we are facing a reversal of a previous Supreme Court ruling that had deemed capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment.

If it is inalienable then should it not always be retained by that person? Or is a person allowed to forfeit their right to life when a bunch of other people decide that for them?

A rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. A porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles and a skunk does not need permission from the state to spew its stink. These are quite natural acts of self defense. However, thorns do not prevent you or I from plucking roses, and needles on a porcupine do not prevent you or I from shooting that porcupine, and the odor of a skunk does not keep them from becoming road kill. Rights will be trampled upon. This is the primary and lawful foundation for a just government.

As I stated earlier, if you and I and TOA, and projectvxn, and ownbestenemy and all others have the right to self defense, and we do, it follows that we have the right to come together to form an organization towards that same end.

Just governments concern themselves with the protection of individual rights. All else is tyranny of some form or another.

Rights, privileges, and inalienable rights can be a confusing subject when we start analyzing if we really have any. Nearly every right, be it inalienable or a privilege can be taken away by someone else currently or through some piece of legislation.

The world is gray to those who refuse to separate the black and the white of gray, and muddy waters will remain muddy waters as long as we keep stirring it up. No rights can ever be taken away. Privileges can, and every parent knows that, but never rights. If you are robbed your right to retain your property was not taken away, it was trampled upon, and either denied, and/or disparaged.

I agree with your interpretation of rights and privileges. In my post I referred to voting as a right (while I understand it can be taken away) it is none-the-less a right until taken away. The same with life, it is a right until you commit a crime warranting capital punishment. Liberty is a right, that can be taken away through incarceration.

We are not in agreement over capital punishment, but in terms of restricting the liberty of those who have willingly trampled all over the right(s) of other people, it is their criminality that is being addressed, and in terms of rights, they certainly did not have the right to murder, steal, rape, or cause any other harm to another, but did so anyway. This criminality needs to be dealt with. However, in dealing with criminality, it is not uncommon to show compassion to the criminal and offer a contract of probation in an attempt to convince this criminal their liberty is worth keeping and the way to do that is to respect the rights of other people. Failing that, incarceration becomes necessary.

To frame this handling of the criminal as some sort of ironic disparagement of a right is to misunderstand the purpose of redress of grievance, and remedy. We create governments in a just world to put justice back in when there is an absence of it. Justice is barely recognizable when present, yet glaringly so when absent.

Freedom of speech is limited, and a person that is free to speak just has to do it in the proper venue, not on any public or private property in which you haven't obtained permissions first.

This argument is often used to diminish the absoluteness of rights. However, all law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Freedom of speech is merely a phrase. It is not the principle behind the right. The principle is based upon no harm caused. Slander is not a right, it is not that the right to speak freely is hindered, it is that no one has the right to slander another. There are no restrictions on rights. Either it is a right, or it is not. It is really just that simple.

Much of the confusion comes from the belief that legislation is law, but it is not, it is merely evidence of law. The map is not the territory and the word is not the thing defined and a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. You cannot grow a crop and corn on a map, and that map can merely point to land where you may be able to grow a crop of corn. You can not drive the word automobile, and you can not smoke a picture of a pipe. Legislation, at best, can only point to the law, or do its best to describe it in a reasonable fashion.

Rights are a weird thing, because none are truly, really secure.

Sad but true.

The most crushing part about rights, is that so often we violate another persons rights. Inalienable rights at that. You would think we would have it down to a science after 200 years. The fact is there are no rights period, they are all privileges, even your right to a firearm.

They are rights, and we do not have it down to a science because we do not even look at the law as science. Hell, we barely accept scientific law as science, but we astoundingly refer to rights as the "laws of man". Rights are as natural as gravity is.

Rights are what we declare them to be, they reflect our values as a nation. Today we might trade in the right to privacy for security, and tomorrow we may want to give up our right to security and exchange it for a pizza. Is being secure a right? Is it a privilege? It is hard to tell.

'

Bad legislation does this, law never does. It is not hard to tell, law is self evident. Confusing legislation is the first clue it is not law. Thousands of pages of legislation is yet another clue that it is not law. Tautology is always true, but is also needlessly repetitive. Circumlocution of definition is not defining. A horse is a horse of course, of course, is tautological but does not define a horse.

This is why i follow your threads. Perspective!
If our society had a firm grasp on the difference between the two as the framers intended we would not have nearly the self imposed wounds our society is reeling from today.

Regarding the OP. I always thought the Ninth was the "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater not on fire" amendment. As any right I have does not permit me to infringe upon any right you have.

Is that just too simplistic? S+F to you Sir

reply to post by howmuch4another

Regarding the OP. I always thought the Ninth was the "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater not on fire" amendment. As any right I have does not permit me to infringe upon any right you have.

There is no Amendment in the Bill of Rights that functions as a prohibition against the people, and all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are prohibitions on the federal government.

The shouting fire in a crowded theater ruling, is generally an oft' and woefully misunderstood ruling made by the Supreme Court where Oliver Wendell Holmes gave the opinion. An opinion born of a unanimous decision in Schenk v United States

Here is the exact quote that gets so twisted around these days:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

What was held in Schenk was that individuals did not have a right to speak out against the military draft. The SCOTUS relied upon the Espionage Act of 1917 to support their determination...that and they defined "evil" as being speech of protest against the dubious practice of conscription.

Not surprisingly, Schenk v United States was finally overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio. So, when people use the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" example in order to dismiss your absolute and unalienable right to speech, you can now, first point out they are grossly misquoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, explain to them the case law involved, and most importantly point out to them the ruling was correctly and lawfully overturned by a wiser court.

The Ninth Amendment prohibits the government from using all listed rights as an excuse to deny all other rights in your possession not listed. You have the right to sleep outdoors in spite of what the 11th Circuit say's about it. You have the right to drive, in spite of artful legalese that statutorily defines "drive" in such a way to trick you into surrendering your right. You have the right to do any business that causes no harm without obtaining any license to do so. You have more rights than the Founders could possibly list.

Understanding that by listing the rights they did, that future idiots in government would use these enumerated rights as a weapon against individuals, they created the Ninth Amendment.

However, as Schenk v United States and Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously misquoted holding illustrate, even enumerated rights will be denied and/or disparaged. Vigilance is ever necessary, and the jealous guard, and zealous protections of your rights is paramount.

Nice to see you my friend.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You have more rights than the Founders could possibly list.

Understanding that by listing the rights they did, that future idiots in government would use these enumerated rights as a weapon against individuals, they created the Ninth Amendment.

well that certainly gets to right down to it doesn't it. you are worth your tutoring fees in spades

It is fair to say every amendment dealt with the law of unintended consequences in one form or another.

be well.

Sean Paul, unfortunately my previous post did not include the abuses of individual rights perpetrated by the executive and legislative branches. As you say, this abuse exists and is pervasive.

Having said that I'd like to pose a question to you because you seem like a sharp guy. Well, here we've discussed various issues associated with individual and state rights. But, though I'm embarrassed to admit it, I've a problem. A friend of mine and myself were discussing rights and I brought up a similar point which I alluded to in my previous post. Namely, that people have in mind claiming "rights" which really are privileges which they expect and demand other people to pay for.

What comes to mind is what I said earlier regarding the supposed "right to a living wage." Further claims consist of promoting the notion that someone has a "right to education," the "right to affordable housing," etc. In the course of the discussion of friend brought up something which irritated me to no end. He said "I'd say that's a matter of opinion of what "rights" are versus what you think are privileges." This seemed like verbal sleight of hand, but I could not answer him. How does one refute a claim that these are only opinion? What is aggravating is that I know very well this cannot be correct. Scenarios flood my mind such as the following. Suppose I'm speaking with a woman.

I decide to rob you of your purse. In my opinion, I can rob you because what you deem to be your right to possess your purse is just a privilege in my opinion. Your "right" is a mere abstraction, a concept with no moorings as opposed to a rule based on principle. Were I to take that purse, no one would have any real moral justification to protest that decision since the difference between rights and privileges is merely based on opinion

Yet even if I offered such an answer, I cannot really explain WHY. The consequences of what would happen in a society wherein all rights were conflated with privileges would end in tyranny. But there are questions which I cannot answer. For instance, how many rights do we have? What is the number? What are they specifically? Who decides? Another frustrating issue. My friend also said "Since everyone disagrees about where rights come from, that's why different countries have devised different rights for their peoples, to fit their cultural and political needs."

Please forgive the disorganized nature of this post, Sean Paul.

reply to post by PersianEmpire

He said "I'd say that's a matter of opinion of what "rights" are versus what you think are privileges." This seemed like verbal sleight of hand, but I could not answer him. How does one refute a claim that these are only opinion? What is aggravating is that I know very well this cannot be correct. Scenarios flood my mind such as the following. Suppose I'm speaking with a woman.

I highly recommend you read Frederic Bastiat's The Law. Bastiat cuts through all the manure and gets straight to the heart of the matter. His influence on me is profound.

In terms of the belief that one has a right to some other person's personal wealth is also something Bastiat speaks to. He calls it "legal plunder". That is precisely what it is, and legal plunder is still plunder.

From Bastiat's attack on legal plunder I came to some conclusions myself about legislation and law. What I determined, as it is self evident, is that legislation is not law, merely evidence of law.

Legislation is no more law than a map is the territory or the word automobile can be driven. You cannot grow a crop of corn on a map. At best, all that map can do is point you to land where corn might grow. The same principle applies with legislation. Legislation can only, at best, point to law.

The mistake, or flaw, people make is they attempt to separate scientific law from "the laws of man". There is no separation. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. The law of gravity did not come into play because Newton wrote down a mathematical equation. It existed long before Newton existed and continues to exist long after Newton died. No one has repealed gravity, it will not be struck down as unconstitutional, and its application applies to every person regardless of physicality or mental capacity. The same is true of the right to life.

Before there was government, there were people. It would be absurd to assume that people did not have the right to life until a just government was formed granting that right to people. This is why the right to life is counted as a self evident unalienable right. Unalienable means non transferable. It cannot be given, nor taken away because it is inherent to the thing or person who posses it.

Since all people have the right to life, it follows then, that people have the right to self defense. Since people have the right to self defense, it follows that people have the right to come together collectively to institute an organization towards that same end. This is the basis for all just governments. They are instituted by the people to better facilitate the protection of individual rights.

The right to life, and self defense, since it is law, is not just for people. It is universal in its application, so the rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. The porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles, and the skunk does not need permission from the state in order to spew its stink. These creatures have the unalienable and natural right to life and self defense. No one questions this, and to be certain, no one argues that the skunks right to stink, or the roses right to "smell as sweet" were rights given to them by wise old men a long time ago.

The disingenuousness about rights seems to be reserved solely for people, as if people are too stupid to see what is self evident, but roses, porcupines and skunks won't be fooled.

Originally posted by howmuch4another
This is why i follow your threads. Perspective!
If our society had a firm grasp on the difference between the two as the framers intended we would not have nearly the self imposed wounds our society is reeling from today.

Regarding the OP. I always thought the Ninth was the "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater not on fire" amendment. As any right I have does not permit me to infringe upon any right you have.

Is that just too simplistic? S+F to you Sir

JPZ already addressed this and I just wanted to say I concur with his view on this. As he stated, the Constitution is a document for the structure of Government. It is the liberties and limitations that the People; who inherently hold all political powers; have allowed the Government to exercise or retain, along with the powers we have expressly prohibited them from undertaking.

This is the crux of the Ninth Amendment. Because of fear and original apprehension by James Madison in crafting the Bill of Rights (among others such as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams to name a few), that such a bill of rights would be seen as the rights given by Government and not the rights held by free peoples, the Ninth Amendment was born.

I tend to think, via the Declaration of Independence, that all rights can be boiled down to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. As such, any right I retain, I do so because I am human and I am free. That right, while maybe exclusively my own, cannot breach one's basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to the point in which I have denied them in their endeavors.

This is a key point, especially when discussing your point of "...any right I have does not permit me to infringe upon any right you have." This is true but many would argue that this would create a sense of anarchy in such that everyone is doing what they want, eventually boundaries would be overstepped. Where do my rights end and your rights start? The key is denial of such rights, which particularly flows forth from the hand of Government.

Individuals infringe upon other individuals' rights daily. They do not however, deny such rights (I understand that there are those that do, criminals of the worst kind engage in the denial of said rights, but this is where the rule of law becomes important!) Merely infringing upon rights, such as me being a bad neighbor that makes living where you live unbearable is not denying you of any rights, rather infringing upon them. Me breaking into your home every night is no longer infringing upon your rights but denying you of them, that is to be secure in your own effects and person.

Forgive me it is late and I might have drifted off point. The Ninth Amendment was to secure the rights that were not specifically enumerated within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is solid argument that since the Constitution is directed toward Government and not the People, the such bills of rights are redundant and will eventually only be used to serve the Government. We see this today with arguments ranging from arms (gun) control to gay marriage.

We have effectively passed on more power to the Government than ever was granted. Discussions on gun control all have an undertone that the Government is allowing us to retain arms and that they have the ability to limit such a right of self preservation and protection. What good is the Right to Life if we cannot defend that Life without fear of Government saying that our means are illegal?

Without the Ninth, drinking a beer in your home could lead to a visit from ATF. Without the Ninth, wearing women's underwear could become banned. Without the Ninth, homeschooling (although constantly under attack) would be completely outlawed. It is the Ninth, that is placed before the Tenth, that shows us that the Framers were creating a Government in which free people can operate daily and among each other, without the intervention of Government at every step.

Sadly, those that occupy Government fail to heed Lord Acton's words. "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Eventually, the desire for more power has lead to the reduction of personal liberties in favor of collective rights.

Originally posted by PersianEmpire
What comes to mind is what I said earlier regarding the supposed "right to a living wage." Further claims consist of promoting the notion that someone has a "right to education," the "right to affordable housing," etc. In the course of the discussion of friend brought up something which irritated me to no end. He said "I'd say that's a matter of opinion of what "rights" are versus what you think are privileges." This seemed like verbal sleight of hand, but I could not answer him. How does one refute a claim that these are only opinion? What is aggravating is that I know very well this cannot be correct. Scenarios flood my mind such as the following. Suppose I'm speaking with a woman.

Forgive my intrusion and I understand that your question was directed towards Jean Paul. This is why, in my earlier reply above to another poster I stated that we, via the Declaration of Independence, can boil all rights down to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. One surely has the the "right to an education" or the "right to shelter" (I changed your quote of 'right to affordable housing' because adding adjectives is where the true verbal slight of hand is coming into play!)

The answer to such inquiries is simple I believe. You can affirm that we retain those rights and this is enshrined within the Ninth Amendment. In simple terms, those rights not enumerated within the Constitution are retained by the People. Chief Justice Warren I believe states it best.

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

How true is that statement? Additional is infinite, but only if we were to hold power to the individual and that all rights are derived from there. It is the collectivist mindset that has eroded the notion that rights are innumerable and thus need protection from Government. Instead the prevailing thought has become like your friend. That we must examine one's individual determination and ultimately apply it to the whole to determine if it is a "right" or "privilege".

Of course, a discussion on how individuals perceive rights differs vastly against what the Government perceives as rights. As JPZ has mentioned and myself included, that the fears of the Federalist was that the inclusion of a Bill of Rights would lead us to a point to which dolts within power would see such a list as exclusive to Government and that the People retain nothing more than that which is enumerated. I believe this is why almost 99% of those in power would brush off the Ninth Amendment as moot and insignificant. To the contrary, it is the most powerful of the Bills.

I decide to rob you of your purse. In my opinion, I can rob you because what you deem to be your right to possess your purse is just a privilege in my opinion. Your "right" is a mere abstraction, a concept with no moorings as opposed to a rule based on principle. Were I to take that purse, no one would have any real moral justification to protest that decision since the difference between rights and privileges is merely based on opinion

Being secure in your possessions is absolutely a right; although I understand your conundrum regarding who holds it to be a right. In such a scenario, one would have to respect private property rights. That which is ours is ours. Through dutiful gain, we have obtained possessions. Those possessions become an extension of ourselves. Regardless, your hypothetical presents an opportunity to expand some thought.

Yet even if I offered such an answer, I cannot really explain WHY. The consequences of what would happen in a society wherein all rights were conflated with privileges would end in tyranny. But there are questions which I cannot answer. For instance, how many rights do we have? What is the number? What are they specifically? Who decides? Another frustrating issue. My friend also said "Since everyone disagrees about where rights come from, that's why different countries have devised different rights for their peoples, to fit their cultural and political needs."

The Rule of Law, based on a system that seeks to correct Injustice and does not seek Justice is in my opinion the only system that works for a free people. In regards to the statement about the disagreement of where rights are derived, I can understand the frustration and confusion. Jean Paul's analogies on that subject I believe, say it best. Does a rose question why it retains thorns in order to protect itself? Does it wonder if it is a right to keep away danger?

Please forgive the disorganized nature of this post, Sean Paul.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Forgive my intrusion and I understand that your question was directed towards Jean Paul.

Oh, I don’t regard it as an intrusion. Thank you OwnBestEnemy for the reply, and thank you JPZ as well. I’m going to look into getting a copy of The Law in book format. Can’t believe I haven’t heard of it before. To be sure, I welcome the responses of both of you gentlemen, as well of course anyone else who has given thought to the queries I pose.

This is why, in my earlier reply above to another poster I stated that we, via the Declaration of Independence, can boil all rights down to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Now, I understand that Property is not in the Declaration of Independence as per the agreement between Jefferson and Franklin that it not be placed there, but I know the Fifth Amendment states that the government cannot deprive a person of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process. May we count property as one of these rights?

One surely has the the "right to an education" or the "right to shelter"

It’s obvious that you do not mean what my left-leaning political science professor means when he said “we all have the right to education and shelter.” Because he means by that that we must facilitate these things through increased public spending, or as he calls it, “investing in the future of our citizens.” But he went on, to capture his logic, and I‘ll paraphrase. “Protecting our Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness is the foundation whereby the state and federal government serves the people.

The everyday activities of government, such as introducing programs for superior education are what actually make Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness mean something substantial. Officials must invest in public programs, because otherwise not all Americans will be able to experience Life, and Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and that phrase will consequently ring hollow.” He concluded by adding that the federal and state governments must push for legislation to aid the poor and educate the citizenry, and that even individuals protest this decision, that their rights but placed on a scale and weighed against the majority rights.

How to process this, I wondered? Essentially, while he was making these statements I mentally prepared myself for a counteroffensive, not intending to speak out in class, but merely for a mental defense collectivism. I resolved that no, education and shelter, though undeniably desirable, are not rights. Is this an incorrect counterargument to my prof’s claims?

(I changed your quote of 'right to affordable housing' because adding adjectives is where the true verbal slight of hand is coming into play!)

Oh, I don’t doubt it. So now, one does have a right to housing, just not affordable housing?

On a related subject concerning individual and collective rights, the aforementioned friend of mine tried to misapply the Constitution’s reasoning to the following dialogue, but I didn't know what to say in response. Our discussion regarding feminism and I pointed out that feminist and men’s rights movement legislation undermines the Rule of Law.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Him: The way I see it, feminism focuses on bringing equality for women by focusing on the issues that more greatly effect women. Like when a woman wants to get her tubes tied and doctors keep second-guessing her. Or when she wants to get a breast reduction and runs into the same problem. The Men's Rights Movement helps even the scales by focusing on issues that more greatly effect men. Such as women being favored in custody cases. Eglitarianism (sp?) covers everyone regardless. Gay, straight, black, white, Hispanic, male, female, old, young, etc. It's all encompassing. Which is great and all, but sometimes certain issues call for more specialized focus. Feminism and Men's Rights are more specialized in certain areas.

Me: Feminism and the MRM each have a nasty habit of pressuring government, whether the judicial or legislative branch, to deny individual Constitutional rights when convenient, and fill the vacuum with abstract gender "rights" which are privileges bestowed by government. Feminists and the MRM are not alone in this by any stretch of the imagination, but they typify this trend and are frequently the de facto vanguard of the trend. What results is that judges make legislation from the bench to cater to specific group, gender, or class interests rather than interpreting law as it applies to individuals.

Meanwhile, legislators engage in crusading to make conditions more "fair" for women or men while also disregarding the Constitutional framework whereby particular laws are determined to be sound or unsound. Essentially, feminism and the MRM are largely responsible for the extralegal "rights" i.e. arbitrarily given government privileges, which have multiplied in this country since the 1960s and 70s. It makes a mockery of rights as they apply to individual people, and it is a paragon of the banana republic our political system has become.

Ironically, while feminist legislation benefits women as a group for a while, the tables can easily turn to benefit white men, blacks, Hispanics, or whatever group happens to be the designated "down-trodden" collective worthy of progressivist attention. The reason for this is simple: the framework of individual rights is taken out of the picture, and that opens the door for one collective group to replace other collective groups. Abrogating individual rights for collective privileges amounts to sawing off the branch of the tree that you're sitting on.

Him: I'd say that's a matter of opinion of what "rights" are versus what you think "privileges" are. Republicans do that often in the interest of themselves. So do Democrats. This isn't just something that "feminists" or the "MRM" do. You just described pretty much every politician that ever existed.It's not solely a feminist or MRM thing. It's called special interest groups. I don't see what that has, specifically, to do with feminism or the MRM considering it's not exclusive to those movements and that kind of thing has been ongoing on politics for decades.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

And that’s where I’m at. I need to respond to that specifically, but don’t know exactly what to say. I'd send this to you guys in the form of private messages because I don't want to derail the thread, but I cannot yet sent private messages. And I honestly believe that this does deal with what we're talking about in that state government could use the reasoning of my friend to deny people of their individual rights, and that is what concerns me greatly.

The Rule of Law, based on a system that seeks to correct Injustice and does not seek Justice is in my opinion the only system that works for a free people.

Could you explain the difference? I recognize that there is probably an important difference, but initially it strikes me as a tautology, and I cannot quite wrap my mind around it at the moment much less articulate it to a progressivist thinker.

Originally posted by PersianEmpire

The Rule of Law, based on a system that seeks to correct Injustice and does not seek Justice is in my opinion the only system that works for a free people.

Could you explain the difference? I recognize that there is probably an important difference, but initially it strikes me as a tautology, and I cannot quite wrap my mind around it at the moment much less articulate it to a progressivist thinker.

First, welcome PE. It is a breath of fresh air to read your comments and thoughts. I am still reading over and thinking about what you have stated in the majority of your post, but I believe I can address this right now. Or at the very minimum, begin a dialogue with you and most likely JPZ will jump in.

I can understand how one can see tautology within such a statement that I made. What is the difference between seeking Justice and fighting Injustice? Would they not be the same end, just different means to get there?

It means that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution can not be reduced by the states. However the states may expand upon the rights retained by the people.

Since the federal government is limited in power, All other rights are reserved for the people or the states.

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
It means that the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution can not be reduced by the states. However the states may expand upon the rights retained by the people.

Since the federal government is limited in power, All other rights are reserved for the people or the states.

This I believe is half true. The Ninth Amendment is directed towards the People; absent any reference to the State. It was an amendment that was put in place by weary men that understood that a bill of rights would later on be construed by lessor men to be a limiting call upon the People (the true inherent political power base!) The Tenth comes later, in which it speaks of what you write.

How can Man or even Government count the rights held by individuals? Knowing they could not, the Ninth was born. If I want to sleep in a sleeping bag and live on the land, I should be able to. If I want to live without life insurance, I should be able to. If I want to spend my days being a thorn in the government's side by calling out their baloney, the Ninth protects that right.

The Ninth has nothing to do with the States or even the Federal Government. It has everything to do with we, the People and the fact that each of us holds certain rights to be self evident.