Jorge Arbusto's fault... He's the one who downsized & outsourced our industrial infrastructury that is now produced more "efficiently" in Third World shitholes...
Trump is 20 years too late, we should've elected Ross Perot when we had the chance...
But I don't give a shit anymore.... I'm probably gonna croak sometime within the next 3~4 years anyway...
Fuck all them idiots that did this... They fuckin' ruined this whole goddam planet for everybody...
Too many goddam people, too much goddam garbage & trash... plastics, pesticides, fertilizer runnoff, flushed pharmaceuticals... Gonna all disrupt the global foodchain, drug-resistant diseases running rampant worldwide....
There's no avoiding it... I just hope I croak from old age before it hits
I see no reason to focus on Paul Singer, even though he may be the worst of his ilk...
But that's how they did it during Arbusto's reign.... Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different...
Fuck 'em all... And Fuck Tump too.... he can't bring any of that stuff back no matter what he does... He's just a fucking conartist & grifter who's taking advantage of poor gullible fools who think there's still hope.....
Ok, that explains a little. Thanks. I'm doing what I can for my progeny. Not sure what or if. I have this feeling for my country, but I'm not sure if it is any different than family, in both cases there's some dumbasses that I'd like to choke.
Mitt Romney & Bain Capital were no different.
Yep, same moral arrogance.
I'm not sure about Trump. We'll see. My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist. The next 6 months will reveal a lot.
And yeah, there's no bringing the past back in terms or economic functions, but there may be a decent uprising (again) of the common man. Tulsi Gabbard is the only person on stage that I see with a glimmer of understanding.
Tulsi is a mass murderer. She supports killing American children. She wants to end oil production. She doesn't want us to fight back against terrorists. She is a piece of shit.
Endorsed Endorsed by EMILY's list for pro-choice Democratic women. (Aug 2012)
Yep, she's a politician running for office on the Democrat slate from an overwhelmingly Democrat part of the country.
Like it or not, abortion is the Establishment's policy and it was put in place by Republicans. It will be there until the population declines precipitously. Most young women support it because they don't want as many children as modern medicine allows to survive.
Although I understand the concerns of the pro-abort crowd, I continue to oppose abortion on a moral basis, as it is a crude and vicious form of birth control that corrodes the emotional well being of the people.
When I watch her I see a good hearted woman who is also intelligent and seeks the truth of matters. She may not always be right (re: agree with me), but she is not deliberately corrupt. That alone is worth support.
Finally, her adoption of the mono-theistic (and Christian-like) branch of the Hindu religion is far more acceptable than the anti-Christian Jewish swamp we live with now.
I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did. Catholics hold the majority in the Supreme Court they can end it today. But you dumb Catholics are like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. Lukewarm is what you are. An excuse maker for satan's democrats.
Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Opinion of the Court 7-2; 5D, 2R
Blackmun (R) delivered the Opinion of the court joined by 6 more. Burger (R) Marshall (D) Powell (D) Douglas (D) filed a concurring opinion. Brennan (D) filed a concurring opinion. Stewart (R) filed a concurring opinion.
Dissenting justices: 1D, 1R
White (D) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist joined. Rehnquist (R) filed a dissenting opinion.
The Court contained 6 nominees by Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.
It contained 3 nominees by Democrat presidents FDR, JFK, and LBJ.
Justice Powell was a Democrat nominated by Republican Nixon.
Justice Brennan was a Democrat nominated by Republican Eisenhower.
The Court contained 5 Democrat justices and 4 Republican justices.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan.
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.
So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?
No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them.
I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all.
Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.
The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States.
SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.
The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States.
Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.
At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution.
The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.
Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?
Where should the power lie?
Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies?
Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law.
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
But you didn't answer the question.
You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
But you didn't answer the question.
You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Why ok for babies but not adults?
Yours is an inapplicable question and I will walk you through why that is so.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
ALL power resides in either:
The United States, or
The States, or
The people
Unless you strike down the Constitution, those are your three choices for who has the power to decide whether abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional, lawful or unlawful.
Either the Federal government or the States must be empowered to decide whether to prohibit abortion, or it is left to the people to decide. You must pick one, and only one.
If you choose the Federal government, then you choose to
permit the Congress to pass a law making abortion a crime, or prohibiting States from making abortion a crime, or
permit the Supreme Court to preempt Congress and all States by issuing an opinion based on an interpretation of the Constitution
do nothing, leaving it to the States
If you choose the States, then you choose to
empower the State government to pass a law making abortion a crime
do nothing, leaving it to the people
If you choose the People, then you choose to
render all abortion legal until the People exercise their sovereign power to amend the Constitution to state, for example, "Abortion is a felony punishable by death."
Nothing is murder, or any crime at all, until there is a law stating that it is murder or a crime. It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.
Whoever is empowered is empowered to decide abortion is a crime by passing a law so stating. Should they not pass such a law, then abortion is not a crime within that jurisdiction. Whoever is empowered is empowered to pass a law making interference with lawful abortion a crime, or to regulate abortion in the manner of its choosing.
As you seem to support Federal jurisdiction, where the power now resides, States cannot decide whether to make abortion a crime.
So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?
Why ok for babies but not adults?
The inapplicability of your question is shown by the fact that States have no power to declare abortion lawful or unlawful. The Federal government has declared that it is empowered to decide the matter and it has decided it by declaring to all 50 States that abortion is not unlawful, much less murder, and that it is a constitutional right.
Everything is legal unless there is a law stating it is illegal. Whoever is empowered makes something legal by doing nothing. They make something lawful by not passing a law making it unlawful.
No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.
As a matter of law, you are simply wrong about Marbury. However, assume arguendo that you are correct.
You appear perfectly happy to support an activist Supreme Court deciding the legality of abortion, just as long as the majority agrees with you in exercising jurisdiction you alternately appear to deny exists.
Marbury actually resolved whether the Federal courts could strike down a Federal law as repugnant to the Constitution. In Roe, there was no Federal law involved. Had there been an inconsistent Federal law, the Federal law would have prevailed pursuant to Article 6.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I
You are welcome to live in your alternate reality. It is indisputable truth that people interfering with others entering or leaving abortion clinics are charged with a crime, while people receiving or performing abortions are not.
The only way to overturn Roe is by constitutional amendment or by another action of the Supreme Court itself. A blog entry declaring Roe null and void does not get it.
You appear to actively support the Court usurping power to impose their opinion upon the fifty states and the federal legislature. Your only disagreement is with the opinion they issued.
Just imagine the Framers' surprise when they learn that they created a constitutional right to gay marriage.
If you lived in Nazi Germany in stead of abortion murder America. You would be saying the Jew are being gassed and the Germans are gassing and not being arrested.
Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.
It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived. It is a human being that is being murdered. A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.
Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do. Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.
Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order. Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.
The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.
You can disagree but you would be wrong.
What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.
The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion. Most of the framers would kill, the abortionists with muskets or hanging.
If you lived in Nazi Germany in stead of abortion murder America. You would be saying the Jew are being gassed and the Germans are gassing and not being arrested.
If I were living in Nazi Germany and you asked me what the law was, I would try to respond with an accurate recitation of Nazi German law. I would not make believe that Nazi German law was an A K A Stone brainfart.
Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.
Abortion is not murder if the law says it is legal. Murder defines a criminal act punishable under the law. Try charging someone with criminal abortion.
It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived.
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It does not say a mumbling word about abortion or the right to life of a fetus.
5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger....
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Capital case or crime. One in which death penalty may, but need not necessariy, be imposed.
Yea verily, under the Constitution, living people have been gassed, shot, hanged, and electrocuted until dead. And then there is lethal injection.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence which has never been the law of anyplace. Murder is punished as murder under a murder statute, not the Constitution.
A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.
Zygotes were brought up at #62 by Anthem, to whom I responded. Take it up with Anthem. I never claimed a zygote is a human being. A zygote is a fertilized egg.
Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do.
It appears you either have not read it, or you find therein some imaginary provision that criminalizes abortion. But then, the District Court in Roe found therein the right to abortion, and the Supreme Court opined that, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
Then there is Section 1 of 14th Amendment where SCOTUS finds the imaginary right to abortion,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
An abortion clinic is not a State.
Remember, you are the one supporting the power of SCOTUS to strike down all the state laws that prohibited abortion. My personal finding is that abortion is not addressed by the Constitution, Roe took up an argument based on a non-existent provision of the Constitution, and the case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You, on the other hand, ignore the constitutional and jurisdiction issue and find the court should decide the lawfulness of abortion on constitutional grounds.
Note that at the time of Roe, there was no Federal law banning abortion to overturn. Note also that the final arbiter in interpreting a State law is the highest court of the State, not the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that abortion was a right under some vaguely identified provision emanating from a penumbra.
Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.
Neither the 9th Amendment, nor the 2nd Amendment, created or gave any new right. Neither purports to do so. The right to keep and bear arms was cut and pasted from English common law, which was the law in the colonies before independence.
Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order.
The DoI sits in equal status with a blog entry as far as being law. It is not law. In fact, it was crafted before there was a United States.
Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.
When SCOTUS gets it wrong according to you or me, their interpretation of the law is still the law of the land.
Tell yourself whatever you want. Since SCOTUS said abortion is a constitutional right, abortion has been legal. Since they said gay marriage is a constitutional right, gay marriage is legal. Recognizing that something is legal is not the same as agreeing with it. Believing something is murder does not make it murder. An act may be murder in Texas and less than murder elsewhere. It simply depends on what the applicable statute says.
The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.
SCOTUS is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution and what it says is the governing interpretation. Abortions and gay marriage are legal.
You can disagree but you would be wrong.
You can disagree with SCOTUS and it does not change the law. They are empowered as the final arbiter in interpreting Federal law, including the Constitution, and you and I are not. Our opinions are not binding on the courts, Their's are.
What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.
I will take the time to clear up your evident confusion about color of law and Federal constitutional law.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.
When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).
Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.
Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.
"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion.
And yet, it is the law. Abortion and gay marriage are legal. Pete Buttigieg, a candidate for president, has a husband. We even have laws against using the wrong pronouns. And guys who identify as girls are transformed into record breaking "lady" track stars and "lady" weight lifters.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Obergefell at 4:
(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way.
I didn't write it, but it is now the law. You can make believe otherwise.
If you do not know what it means, stop trying to use it.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.
When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).
Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.
Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.
"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
cts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”,
You can beat me and shut me up. If you could only prove that the Supreme court is the final arbitrator using the Constitution. You can't do that though. You just ignore that point. You can't do it because those words aren't in there. They aren't Chan and you know it.
If you could only prove that the Supreme court is the final arbitrator using the Constitution. You can't do that though. You just ignore that point. You can't do it because those words aren't in there. They aren't Chan and you know it.
U.S. Constitution, Article III.
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;—to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to controversies between two or more states;—between a state and citizens of another state;—between citizens of different states;—between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
[...]
Who do you think is the final arbiter when interpreting the Constitution? Liberty's Flame? Free Republic? Democratic Underground? dKos?
Cite the authority which empowers anyone but the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS is the only court created by the Constitution.
[nc #91] Appeal Roe and Obergefell to the imaginary court of natural law.
[Judas Goat #91] The CDC provides a plethora of documentation establishing how UN-imaginary the court of Natural Law is.
By all means, take your case to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and argue God's law in the imaginary CDC Ecclesiastical Court. Good luck and may ooga booga be with you.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Natural law. This expression, "natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical universal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason.
Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165.
A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
1. NATURAL RIGHTS
Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged.
Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts.
That is because the courts have gone rouge.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your post shows that originally they knew the truth before asshole liars came to power. Deceivers. Fakers. Murderers.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your post shows that originally they knew the truth before asshole liars came to power.
Ah, yes. They knew the troof before asshole liars came to power, and they inserted a clause, (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) ensuring that Natural Law, God's Law, philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, was retained by the people.
Not to be mistaken, slaves were considered persons. Before the assholes and liars took over, the Framers found a unique way to refer to slaves while bestowing to representation in Congress based on an enumeration of persons (census) and "adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." Slaves were that "three fifths of all other persons."
And before the asshole liars came to power, the Framers enshrined slaves with the rights of livestock and other property. All men were created equal, but only white people were accorded the right to naturalization. All men and women were equal, but only white, male landowners could vote. In adopting the Law of God into the American legal system, so said the Founders and Framers before the assholes took over.
About seventy-five years later, President Abe Lincoln went on a three-day drunk and passed out in his bed, his bed perhaps being the bed at the Soldier's Home cottage where President Lincoln frequently went to stay, to be joined in his bed by Captain David Derickson, but I digress. A cabinet member awakened Abe from his slumber and gave him the news. Lincoln jumped from his bed startled, and exclaimed, "I freed the who?"
Ah, yes. They knew the troof before asshole liars came to power, and they inserted a clause, (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) ensuring that Natural Law, God's Law, philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, was retained by the people.
Not to be mistaken, slaves were considered persons. Before the assholes and liars took over, the Framers found a unique way to refer to slaves while bestowing to representation in Congress based on an enumeration of persons (census) and "adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." Slaves were that "three fifths of all other persons."
And before the asshole liars came to power, the Framers enshrined slaves with the rights of livestock and other property. All men were created equal, but only white people were accorded the right to naturalization. All men and women were equal, but only white, male landowners could vote. In adopting the Law of God into the American legal system, so said the Founders and Framers before the assholes took over.
About seventy-five years later, President Abe Lincoln went on a three-day drunk and passed out in his bed, his bed perhaps being the bed at the Soldier's Home cottage where President Lincoln frequently went to stay, to be joined in his bed by Captain David Derickson, but I digress. A cabinet member awakened Abe from his slumber and gave him the news. Lincoln jumped from his bed startled, and exclaimed, "I freed the who?"
blah blah blah
The 9th amendment is real. It was voted on. It is part of the constitution.
Can you name some of the rights it protects? Or are you going to go off on a strange tangent again?
The 9th amendment is real. It was voted on. It is part of the constitution.
Can you name some of the rights it protects?
No. The 9th Amendment states a rule of constitutional construction and does not, in itself, contain a guarantee of any right, or proscription of any infringement.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Can you name the rights protected by the 9th Amendment? Which ones does the 9th Amendment name?
It only protects against construing the constitution’s enumeration of some rights to attack or deny or disparage others because they are not enumerated. As the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the 2nd Amendment, the 9th Amendment has no application to it whatever. However, assuming arguendo the the RKBA were not enumerated, the 9th Amendment would not prohibit restrictions or regulations upon the RKBA.
If the RKBA were not enumerated, the 9th Amendment would prevent denying that right on the sole and exclusive basis that it was not enumerated. That is all.
As an historical note, I would observe that James Madison did NOT write the 2nd Amendment. Madison proposed a set of amendments on 8 June 1789. The introduction of the proposed amendments and the associated colloquy on that occasion are in The Annals of Congress I, at pp. 439-68.
Madison’s draft of what led to the 9th Amendment reads:
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
The assholes of 1789 put Madison’s wording through the congressional committee sausage making process to create the wording that was ultimately offered and ratified, as quoted above.
The purpose of the 9th Amendment was to gain approval for the Constitution as a whole, and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in particular. Several of the eleven (11) states in the Union at that time were opposed to the enumeration of any rights, lest the enumerated rights be construed as a denial of those rights not so enumerated. Two states were opposed to the Constitution as it was framed and adopted, and had not joined the new Union.
As an historical note I reference the comments of James Madison and Roger Sherman upon the introduction of the proposed amendments.
[Madison, 8 Jun 1789] It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the unification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community; I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt it we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.
[...]
[Roger Sherman, 8 June 1789] I do not suppose the constitution to be perfect, nor do I imagine if Congress and all the Legislatures on the continent were to revise it, that their united labors would make it perfect. I do not expect any perfection on this side the grave in the works of man; but my opinion is, that we are not at present in circumstances to make it better. It is a wonder that there has been such unanimity in adopting it, considering the ordeal it had to undergo; and the unanimity which prevailed at its formation is equally astonishing; amidst all the members from the twelve States present at the federal convention, there were only three who did not sign the instrument to attest their opinion of its goodness. Of the eleven States who have received it, the majority have ratified it without proposing a single amendment. This circumstance leads me to suppose that we shall not be able to propose any alterations that are likely to be adopted by nine States; and gentlemen know, before the alterations take effect, they must be agreed to by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States in the Union.
The 9th Amendment was part of a sales pitch and looks like it says more than it does.
I have frequently made disparaging reference to penumbras formed by emanations from various rights. With the 9th Amendment, you stepped squarely into the penumbras and emanations divined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." * We recently referred
381 U. S. 485
in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 367 U. S. 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." See, e.g., Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 341 U. S. 626, 341 U. S. 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U. S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U. S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541. These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees.
While nobody can recite a list of rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment, some may divine that such rights are found within a penumbra emanated by some fundamental constitutional guarantee within the Bill of Rights.
No. The 9th Amendment states a rule of constitutional construction and does not, in itself, contain a guarantee of any right, or proscription of any infringement.
The 9th Amendment states a rule of constitutional construction and does not, in itself, contain a guarantee of any right, or proscription of any infringement.
lol how cute. Words don't mean what they say.
Au contraire, the words of the 9th Amendment mean exactly what they say, neither more, nor less.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The subject of that sentence is enumeration. It is the enumeration that shall not be construed as stated.
The text of the Amendment quite clearly states a limit on the manner in which the enumeration of certain rights within the Constitution may be construed.
The Committee of Eleven did not strip out the meaningful portion of Madison’s proposed amendment via some unhappy accident. It was an intentional act that achieved a desired effect. It delayed ratification by more than two years, but the opposition eventually caved.
This Article presents previously missed or unrecognized evidence regarding the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment. Obscured by the contemporary assumption that the Ninth Amendment is about rights while the Tenth Amendment is about powers, the historical roots of the Ninth Amendment can be found in the state ratification convention demands for a constitutional amendment prohibiting the constructive enlargement of federal power. James Madison's initial draft of the Ninth Amendment expressly adopted language suggested by the state conventions, and he insisted that the final draft expressed the same rule of construction desired by the states. The altered language of the final draft, however, prompted former Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph to halt his state's efforts to ratify the Bill of Rights due to his concern that the Ninth no longer reflected the demands of the state convention. Antifederalists used Randolph's concerns to delay Virginia's, and thus the country's, ratification of the Bill of Rights for two years. While ratification remained pending in Virginia, Madison delivered a major speech in the House of Representatives explaining that the origin and meaning of the Ninth Amendment in fact were rooted in the proposals of the state conventions and that the Ninth guarded against a "latitude of interpretation" to the injury of the states. Although the Ninth's rule of construction distinguishes it from the Tenth Amendment's declaration of principle, Madison and other legal writers at the time of the Founding viewed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as twin guardians of our federalist structure of government. Over time, the Tenth Amendment also came to be understood as expressing a federalist rule of construction. The original federalist view of the Ninth Amendment, however, remained constant and was repeated by bench and bar for more than one hundred years.
James Madison and the 'acrobatic history' of the Ninth Amendment
By Dr. Lynn Uzzell Washington Times Monday, December 12, 2016
The history of constitutional interpretation is notorious for its occasional contortions of speech and logic. But in the case of the Ninth Amendment, history has been truly acrobatic. Whereas the original purpose of this amendment was to guard against expansions of federal power, its recent interpretations have tended (you guessed it) to expand federal authority.
When the Constitution was first being debated during the Ratification period of 1787-88, many Antifederalists denounced the plan of government because it did not contain any bill of rights. Several Federalists, including James Madison, countered that a bill of rights was not only unnecessary in a constitution of limited powers, it was even “dangerous, because an enumeration which is not complete is not safe.”
The Federalists argued that any enumeration of rights would unavoidably imply powers that had never been granted. For instance, if the Framers were to add a provision declaring that Congress had no power to abridge the right of free speech, that prohibition would imply that Congress would have possessed that power without the prohibition. And the Framers did not wish to imply that Congress possessed any powers except the ones that had been enumerated.
When Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson about the prospects of adding a bill of rights, he confessed: “My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights, provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.”
And when proposing a bill of rights to the First Congress, Madison acknowledged that this fear — “that those rights which were not singled out” would be insecure by implication — was “one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system.” But he assured Congress that his proposal for what would eventually become the Ninth Amendment should prevent any such misinterpretation of the Constitution.
Therefore, the Ninth Amendment (like the 10th Amendment) was always intended to be nothing more than a rule of construction: a guide for understanding how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted.
Madison’s initial proposal for the Ninth Amendment makes these intentions clear: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution” (emphasis added).
However, Congress streamlined Madison’s wording by removing the clauses about the enlargement of federal powers.
Virginia delegate Edmund Randolph was incensed when saw the revised version, believing that Congress had removed the most important part of the amendment. Virginia’s objections to the final wording of the Ninth Amendment actually delayed that state’s ratification of all the amendments for two years, which delayed ratification of the entire Bill of Rights.
Madison was flummoxed trying to understand the basis of Virginia’s objections, because he believed that the protection of individual rights and the protection against expansions of federal powers were merely two sides of the same coin: “the distinction,” insofar as Madison could see it, was “altogether fanciful.”
Alas, among Madison’s most charming blind spots was this one: He earnestly believed that Americans could always be trusted to interpret the Constitution in accordance with its intended meaning.
Madison’s faith was proved disastrously misplaced with recent interpretations of the Ninth Amendment. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote that “the right of privacy in the marital relation is fundamental and basic — a personal right ‘retained by the people’ within the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.” In other words, the Ninth Amendment was being used to grant the Court an authority to decide which rights (unnamed within the Bill of Rights) now deserved protection by the federal government. It was being used as an expansion of federal authority over state laws.
In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart criticized the Court’s interpretation of this amendment: “to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history.” Nevertheless, the Court’s reasoning in Griswold has turned somersaults in “privacy cases” ever since, including Roe v. Wade (1973). It has been a truly acrobatic history.
• Lynn Uzzell, Ph.D., is a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University and an adjunct professor of politics at the University of Virginia. She is currently working on an authoritative and impartial appraisal of Madison’s Notes of the Constitutional Convention.
A Project of the National Archives Go Inside the First Congress Amendments in Process House Article the Fifteenth Rights Retained by the People
At 148: Ideas Proposed in the State Ratifying Conventions
There are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Virginia Convention, June 27, 1789
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and Right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same….
New York Convention, July 26, 1788
At 149: As Proposed by James Madison
James Madison proposed that the following language be inserted into Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution between Clauses 3 and 4:
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
June 8, 1789
This proposed amendment stated the principle that listing certain rights did not define the total body of rights possessed by the people. Additional rights of equal importance could be unlisted. nor did that listing mean that government could expand its powers.
At 150: As Proposed by the House Committee
Article I, Section 9—Between Clauses 2 and 3 insert:
The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
July 28, 1789
The committee of eleven shortened Madison’s proposal and focused it on rights alone.
At 151: As passed by the House of Representatives
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others, retained by the people.
August 24, 1789
The house passed this amendment essentially as proposed by the select committee.
At 152: As Approved or Amended by the Senate
The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others, retained by the people.
September 7, 1789
The senate adopted this amendment as passed by the house.
The next step occurs after more than a two year delay.
At 153: As Reported by the Conference Committee
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
December 15, 1791
Passed by both bodies, the amendment was not discussed in the conference committee.
At 154: As sent to the States for Ratification
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
October 2, 1789
The amendment was sent to the states for ratification in this form.
At 155:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
October 2, 1789
The amendment was sent to the states for ratification in this form.
- - - - - - - - - -
Hamilton, Federalist 78, “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”
SCOTUS, Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Randy Barnett, Our Republican Constitution, 1st Ed., Broadside Books, 2016, p. 172, “Then two more amendments were added to ensure the powers of the federal government were limited. The Ninth Amendment was supposed to ensure that the eight amendments protecting rights would not be construed as exclusive.”
Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd Ed., The Foundation Press Inc., 1988, pp. 774-75, “James Madison introduced the ninth amendment in specific response to the arguments of Hamilton and others that enactment of a Bill of Rights might dangerously suggest “that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.” The ninth amendment, which provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” therefore at least states a rule of construction pointing away from the reverse incorporation view that only the interests secured by the Bill of Rights are encompassed within the fourteenth amendment, and at most provides a positive source of law for fundamental but unmentioned rights.”
Consequently, Madison’s original draft of the 9th Amendment read: “The exceptions, here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”
Unfortunately, a select committee removed the key portion of the proposed amendment—which would have prohibited the power of the federal government from being enlarged through interpretation—before the amendment was enacted. Thus, the entire purpose of the amendment (and its future applicability) was rendered moot.
The 9th Amendment was intended to provide a mode of interpretation for the Constitution, guaranteeing that federal courts would have been expressly forbidden from creating new governmental powers through clever interpretation. Given how much trouble varying interpretations of the Constitution have caused throughout American history, it’s a shame this principle was not explicitly included. A lot of subsequent and continuing constitutional mischief could have been avoided.
Texas Law Review Volume 85, Number 1, November 2006
The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says Randy E. Barnett
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. —U.S. CONST., amend. IX
Although the Ninth Amendment appears on its face to protect unenumerated individual rights of the same sort as those that were enumerated in the Bill of Rights, courts and scholars have long deprived it of any relevance to constitutional adjudication.
U.S. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And from the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell University:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE
The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.1 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.”2It 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 In 1965, however, the Amendment was construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”6 Thus, although privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.
“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. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.”7
Therefore, although neither Douglas’ nor Goldberg’s opinion sought to make the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto over legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. Both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and, in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But, if there is a claim of a fundamental right that cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?8
- - - - - - - - - -
Footnotes
1 THE FEDERALIST No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937).
2 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written to Jefferson: “My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light—1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.” 5 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, 271–72 (G. Hunt ed., 1904). See also 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1898 (1833).
3 To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also in his introductory speech.
4 In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94–95 (1947), upholding the Hatch Act, the Court said: “We accept appellant’s contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments [is] involved. The right claimed as inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party official or worker to further his own political views. Thus we have a measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.” See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 300–11 (1936), and Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 143–44 (1939). See also Justice Chase’s opinion in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 388 (1798), and Justice Miller for the Court in Loan Ass’n v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662–63 (1875).
5 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
6 381 U.S. at 484. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Warren and by Justices Clark, Goldberg, and Brennan.
7 381 U.S. at 488, 491, 492. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan joined this opinion. Justices Harlan and White concurred, id. at 499, 502, without alluding to the Ninth Amendment, but instead basing their conclusions on substantive due process, finding that the state statute “violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)). Id. at 500. It appears that the source of the fundamental rights to which Justices Douglas and Goldberg referred must be found in a concept of substantive due process, despite the former’s express rejection of this ground. Id. at 481–82. Justices Black and Stewart dissented. Justice Black viewed the Ninth Amendment ground as essentially a variation of the due process argument under which Justices claimed the right to void legislation as irrational, unreasonable, or offensive, without finding any violation of an express constitutional provision.
8As Justice Scalia observed, “the [Ninth Amendment’s] refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.”Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91 (2000) (dissenting from recognition of due-process-derived parental right to direct the upbringing of their children). Notice the recurrence to the Ninth Amendment as a “constitutional ‘saving clause’” in Chief Justice Burger’s plurality opinion in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579–80 & n.15 (1980). Scholarly efforts to establish the clause as a substantive protection of rights include J. ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 34–41 (1980); and C. BLACK, DECISION ACCORDING TO LAW (1981), critically reviewed in W. Van Alstyne, Slouching Toward Bethlehem with the Ninth Amendment, 91 YALE L. J. 207 (1981). For a collection of articles on the Ninth Amendment, see THE RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE: THE HISTORY AND MEANING OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT (Randy E. Barnett ed., 1989).
The Founders who were leery of the Bill of Rights were not opposed to the rights enumerated. Rather, they were concerned about the application to matters of rights of the interpretive doctrine that has come down to us as the "expresio unius" doctrine, from the Latin "expresio unius est exclusio alterius" (literally, to express one thing, or a set of things, in a contract as being covered by that contract is to exclude everything NOT listed).
We see lawyers draft around the "expresio unius" problem by adding the words "including, but not limited to..." before lists in modern contracts.
The 9th Amendment is an 18th Century effort to prevent the application of what we would call "expresio unius" doctrine. The fear was that the list of enumerated rights would be interpreted to exclude all other rights not enumerated, as in a contract. The 9th Amendment says no.
Now the example: the marital right of consortium is long established in Common and Civil Law. It's not mentioned in the Constitution. It did not, therefore, cease to exist with ratification, but rather, is assumed to exist as before. That's what the 9th is for - it's a safeguard against that sort of interpretive game by an unscrupulous government. There is no list of unenumerated rights - that's the whole point of the exercise.
[Vicomte13 #116 to A K A Stone] The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, like every other clause therein, means what the Supreme Court says it means.
This is the fact, although it tends to be given short shrift around here. SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what the law is. A personal opinion that a Court opinion is wrong does not have any legal effect.
[Vicomte13 #116 to A K A Stone] Currently, the meaning is so broad that I can't off the top of my head think of any commerce not being regulable. Perhaps there is some limiting case law. When I last looked at the issue, long ago in law school, a farmer growing crops on his own farm to feed his own livestock was sufficiently engaged in "interstate commerce" (because of the potential effect of such activity thereupon), that his activity was regulable. I can't think of any economic activity that wouldn't be federally regulable under that broad standard.
For the lurkers to this conversation, I believe the farmer case was Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942). In that case, the family farm was in Montgomery County, Ohio.
I agree with your assessment that the Court expanded the Federal power to encompass just about every conceivable act of commerce. It was not easy to attempt expansion of power exceeding every conceivable act of commerce, although Obamacare found a way to try.
With Obamacare, an attempt was made, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, to regulate or penalize inaction, a failure to engage in commerce by not purchasing private, for-profit health insurance. I argued the unconstitutionality of such attempted usage of the Commerce Clause to regulate what was the absence of commerce. Because the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, the mandate was interpreted as a tax and upheld under the taxing power, but SCOTUS recently held that it can no longer be interpreted as a tax as legal changes have stripped it of any ability to raise revenue, eluding the definition of a tax.
At least there is something that escapes the Commerce Clause, although it is not an action, but an inaction. Then again, perhaps an inaction is a nothing.
[Vicomte13 #118 to nolu chan] Perhaps an example will help clarify.
The Founders who were leery of the Bill of Rights were not opposed to the rights enumerated. Rather, they were concerned about the application to matters of rights of the interpretive doctrine that has come down to us as the "expresio unius" doctrine, from the Latin "expresio unius est exclusio alterius" (literally, to express one thing, or a set of things, in a contract as being covered by that contract is to exclude everything NOT listed).
You are perfectly correct in what you state. I would only supplement that Framers saw the original Bill of Rights as only applicable in restraint of the Federal government. It did not apply at all to the States until after the 14th Amendment, and subsequent selective incorporation against the States by the Court.
[Vicomte13 #118 to nolu chan] The 9th Amendment is an 18th Century effort to prevent the application of what we would call "expresio unius" doctrine. The fear was that the list of enumerated rights would be interpreted to exclude all other rights not enumerated, as in a contract. The 9th Amendment says no.
The proposed 9th Amendment was stripped of much of its important content by the Committee of Eleven. The adopted 9th Amendment (and the whole BoR) generally served as a restraint on the Federal government. The text of the 9th served to restrain the Federal government from adopting any construction of the inclusion of enumerated rights as excluding unenumerated rights, as you state.
This only restrained actions against claimed unnumerated rights on the basis of their lack of enumeration.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The enumeration of certain rights cannot be cited to deny an unnumerated right. It is left to the Courts to decide what is, or is not, an unnumerated right, and whether that right is "fundamental." Not all legislation that burdens a fundamental right is unconstitutional, but is subject to a stricter standard of review.
For the casual reader, Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.:
Fundamental rights. Those rights which have their source, and are explicitly or implicitly guaranteed, in the federal Constitution, Price v. Cohen, C.A.Pa., 715 F.2d 87, 93, and state constitutions, Sidle v. Majors, 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E.2d 763. See e.g., Bill of rights.
Challenged legislation that significantly burdens a "fundamental right" (examples include First Amendment rights, (privacy, and the right to travel interstate) will be reviewed under a stricter standard of review. A law will be held violative of the due process clause if it is not closely tailored to promote a compelling or overriding interest of government. A similar principle applies under Equal Protection law.
I would note one quibble with Black's. The Constitution does not guarantee rights, so much as it declares restrictions upon the powers granted to the Federal government. Congress shall pass no law abridging the right to free speech. The restriction is not absolute, as the right to free speech is not absolute. The right itself does not include a "right" to utter libelous or slanderous statements, to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or to incite a riot.
[Vicomte13 #118 to nolu chan] Now the example: the marital right of consortium is long established in Common and Civil Law. It's not mentioned in the Constitution. It did not, therefore, cease to exist with ratification, but rather, is assumed to exist as before. That's what the 9th is for - it's a safeguard against that sort of interpretive game by an unscrupulous government. There is no list of unenumerated rights - that's the whole point of the exercise.
You are absolutely correct in asserting that, the marital right of consortium is long established in Common and Civil Law.
[Vicomte13 #118 to nolu chan] It did not, therefore, cease to exist with ratification, but rather, is assumed to exist as before. That's what the 9th is for - it's a safeguard against that sort of interpretive game by an unscrupulous government.
However, I would note, the marital right to consortium of two people of the same sex is not long established in Common and Civil Law. Nor does the penumbra of an emanating unnumerated right of privacy broad enough to encompass condoms and abortions seem to be well established in Common and Civil Law.
In Obergefell, Griswold, and Roe, the Court appeared to use the empty vessel of substantive due process to pour new meaning into the Constitution. A criticism of this is that the Court appears almost as an ad hoc Constitutional Convention, expanding Federal power. It is strange that the Bill of Rights is invoked to expand Federal power, when it was designed to prevent the expansion of Federal power.
For an example, the right to privacy is an unnumerated right, as is the right to abortion. The 9th Amendment, inter alia, was cited in support of the right to abortion. The 9th Amendment restrained government denial of the asserted right to abortion via construing the Constitution to deny the existence of said right because it was not enumerated. Application extended to the States by incorporation via the 14th Amendment would appear to restrain the States from denying the asserted right to abortion via construing the Constitution as denying said right's existence because it was not enumerated.
What I fail to see is how the 9th Amendment can be contorted to establish the existence of a positive right to abortion. If it existed as a right in Common or Civil law, I see how it could be found there. But how it is found in a penumbra from an emanation from an unnumerated right eludes me.
I do not find the right to abortion in a penumbra emanating from the unenumerated right to privacy. I simply do not find abortion to be a constitutional right. SCOTUS found that, and they made it law. SCOTUS can overturn Roe and it will no longer be a constitutional right, much as Pluto is no longer a planet.
In the end, what SCOTUS says is the law. Until they change their mind, or the law itself is changed, and then the most recent statement becomes the law.
In the end, what SCOTUS says is the law. Until they change their mind, or the law itself is changed, and then the most recent statement becomes the law.
If you want to change the law, start with changing the flag with the yellow-fringe on it. usa-the-republic.com/item...interest/flag%20code.html You can read where titled "THE FLAG IS PRECISELY DEFINED BY LAW"
Your blather is tax protester nonsense which was was disposed of decades ago as being frivolous and of no merit whatever. A lawyer making that argument could be subjected to sanctions for frivolous filing.
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996).
[Excerpt]
Finally, Defendant Greenstreet's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment identifies this Court as an "Admiralty Court" without further discussing his allegation. If his reference is to be construed as a jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Others have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty. In light of the fact that this Court has such a flag in its courtroom, the issue is addressed. The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. To think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's jurisdiction is frivolous.See Vella v. McCammon, 671 F. Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D.Tex.1987) (describing petitioner's claim that court lacked jurisdiction because flag was fringed as "without merit" and "totally frivolous"). Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction.
Vella v. McCammon, 671 F. Supp. 1128 (S.D. Tex. 1987)
[Excerpt]
The remaining claims that Petitioner has asserted by way of motion to dismiss, e.g. Court lacking jurisdiction because the Court's flag has yellow fringes on it, were denied and the Court considers them to have not only been without merit but also to have been totally frivolous. Petitioner's claims have no arguable basis in law or fact and the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Your blather is tax protester nonsense which was was disposed of decades ago as being frivolous and of no merit whatever. A lawyer making that argument could be subjected to sanctions for frivolous filing.
The Congress shall have Power to Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise, to Pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" The Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1. [emphasis added]
No Capitation or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken." The Constitution for the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 4. [emphasis added]
As for your tax protestor comment I will leave you with the exact tax statute that would be applicable were I held to be liable to collect such a tax.
26 CFR, 601.103 (a) is the only place which tells us who is required to file a return, provided that person has been properly noticed by the District Director to KEEP RECORDS AND THEN NOTICED THAT HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO FILE. It states, "In general, each taxpayer (or person required to collect and pay over the taxes) is required to file a prescribed form of return ..." Are you a Taxpayer? (l.o.- you must first be a tax collector)
As for your tax protestor comment I will leave you with the exact tax statute that would be applicable were I held to be liable to collect such a tax.
26 CFR, 601.103 (a) is the only place which tells us who is required to file a return, provided that person has been properly noticed by the District Director to KEEP RECORDS AND THEN NOTICED THAT HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO FILE. It states, "In general, each taxpayer (or person required to collect and pay over the taxes) is required to file a prescribed form of return ..." Are you a Taxpayer? (l.o.- you must first be a tax collector)
History & New Evidence that it is a foreign agency.
By Dan Meador April 1, 2000 dmeador@poncacity.net
Things are looking up for Dan Meador. He did his time in prison and got out. Perhaps you could find a source of legal advice who did not participate in a tax scam, and who is not a convicted criminal with a prison record.
Look what your wacko, criminal dingbat source's bullshit did to some poor bastard:
¶ 10 Mr. Wolgamot also recommended to plaintiff that he contact Mr. Wasson and Mr. Starns regarding the notice of deficiency. Mr. Wasson and Mr. Starns in turn referred plaintiff to a “legal researcher” named Dan Meador. Mr. Meador told plaintiff that the IRS was wrong with respect to the alleged deficiency, and that he would prepare documents that would help plaintiff deal with the IRS. Mr. Meador prepared a series of documents that were delivered by Mr. Starns to plaintiff. Plaintiff signed the documents prepared by Mr. Meador and sent them to the IRS. Plaintiff did not specify the exact dates he spoke with Mr. Wasson, Mr. Starns and Mr. Meador and signed the documents, although the chronology again indicates a time period of 1999-2002. Plaintiff stated he never considered paying the deficiency to the IRS because he “was being reassured by everybody that this was legal.”
¶ 11 Plaintiff testified that in response to Mr. Meador’s documents, the IRS sent him a letter stating that Mr. Meador’s arguments were “frivolous.”
[...]
¶ 34 Plaintiff argues that after receiving the notice of deficiency, his discovery of the actionable legal malpractice claim against defendants was delayed by the acts/omissions of Mr. Wolgamot and of persons referred directly or indirectly by Mr. Wolgamot (i.e., Mr. Starns, Mr. Wasson, Mr. Meador, and Mr. Vallone), who constantly reassured plaintiff that his participation in the AEGIS program was legal and could be defended. Plaintiff also argues that discovery of the actionable legal malpractice claim against defendants was further delayed by Mr. Wolgamot’s admitted intentional concealment of his doubts about the legality of the AEGIS trusts. Plaintiff contends that as result of the actions and omissions of Mr. Wolgamot and the persons to whom plaintiff had been referred, plaintiff did not discover he had an actionable claim for legal malpractice against defendants until December 31, 2003, when Mr. Coobs wrote him that he likely had claims against unspecified third parties. Elsewhere in his appellant’s brief, plaintiff contends he did not discover he had an actionable claim for legal malpractice against defendants until Mr. Pomerance informed him so in January 2004. Plaintiff argues he filed his complaint for legal malpractice on December 22, 2005, within two years of either of the dates on which he allegedly learned of his actionable claim against defendants (December 31, 2003, or January 2004), and thus the trial court erred in finding his legal malpractice action time-barred as a matter of law and granting summary judgment for defendants.
[...]
¶ 38 Even if, for the sake of argument only, we considered the statute of limitations as beginning to run only when plaintiff reasonably should have known he had an actionable claim against defendants, the facts indicate he reasonably should have known of his actionable claim for legal malpractice against defendants no later than October 10, 2003, when he retained the law firm of Meyer Capel to represent him. Specifically, by October 10, 2003, plaintiff had: (1) enrolled in AEGIS at Mr. Wolgamot’s prompting so as to provide him with asset protection and tax savings, despite Mr. Foster’s warning that his participation in AEGIS could lead to an audit; (2) received a notice of deficiency for the first two tax years he had been an AEGIS member; (3) been informed by the IRS that the defense to the notice offered by Mr. Meador was frivolous; (4) been informed by Ms. Ungaro that plaintiff’s participation in the AEGIS program, including its use of offshore trusts and debit cards, could lead him to being charged with money laundering and/or tax evasion; (5) received newsletters from Mr. Vallone relating to “problems” AEGIS members were having with the IRS, including an instance when the AEGIS office was raided by armed IRS agents who carted off documents; (6) received a notice from the IRS stating he owed $247,984.45 in back taxes for the years covering his participation in the AEGIS program; (7) received a notice from the Illinois Department of Revenue that he owed $30,813 in back taxes for the first two tax years he had been an AEGIS member; (8) authorized his secretary to send a letter to Mr. Starns in which she referenced AEGIS as constituting a “scam”; (9) been notified that Mr. Foster had been served with a subpoena from the Illinois Department of Revenue, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, to produce tax documents relating to plaintiff for years he had been an AEGIS member (1997 to 2001); (10) been served with a subpoena compelling him to provide AEGIS-related documents for a federal grand jury on December 3, 2002; and (11) been threatened by the Illinois Department of Revenue that it would refer plaintiff to the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation for proceedings to suspend his medical license if he did not pay the money he owed in back taxes for the years he had been an AEGIS member.
¶ 39 In sum, all these notifications and subpoenas from 1999 to 2003 informed plaintiff that, far from reducing his tax liability as promised by defendants, his participation in the AEGIS program was increasing his tax liabilities and subjecting him to potential criminal prosecution and loss of his medical license. By the time plaintiff retained Meyer Capel on October 10, 2003, to handle any proceedings brought against him by the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation in connection with his failure to pay taxes under AEGIS, he reasonably should have known that he was injured by his participation in the AEGIS program, that his injury was wrongfully caused, and that he had an actionable claim against defendants. Plaintiff still did not file suit for legal malpractice until more than two years lat er, December 22, 2005. Thus, even under plaintiff’s reading of Khan as holding that the twoyear limitations period does not begin to run until plaintiff realizes he has an actionable claim, plaintiff’s legal malpractice action against defendants still was not timely filed. Accordingly, the trial court correctly found plaintiff’s legal malpractice action was timebarred as a matter of law.
¶ 40 Next, plaintiff argues defendants should be estopped from raising a limitations defense, given that Mr. Wolgamot assured plaintiff the AEGIS program was legal and performed legal work to allow plaintiff to continue in AEGIS even after receipt of the notice of deficiency, referred plaintiff to persons who assured him of the legality of the AEGIS program, and withheld the fact that the Seventh Circuit had found the AEGIS program was not a legitimate tax shelter. “The party claiming estoppel has the burden of proving it by clear and unequivocal evidence.” Geddes v. Mill Creek Country Club, Inc., 196 Ill. 2d 302, 314 (2001). “To establish equitable estoppel, the party claiming estoppel must demonstrate that: (1) the other person misrepresented or concealed material facts; (2) the other person knew at the time he or she made the representations that they were untrue; (3) the party claiming estoppel did not know that the representations were untrue when they were made and when they were acted upon; (4) the other person intended or reasonably expected that the party claiming estoppel would act upon the representations; (5) the party claiming estoppel reasonably relied upon the representations in good faith to his or her detriment; and (6) the party claiming estoppel would be prejudiced by his or her reliance on the representations if the other person is permitted to deny the truth thereof.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 313-14. “Under Illinois law, equitable estoppel does not give a plaintiff the entire limitations period measured from the date the defendant discontinues the conduct that lulled the plaintiff into inaction.” Butler v. Mayer, Brown & Platt, 301 Ill. App. 3d 919, 925 (1998). Rather, plaintiff is allowed a “reasonable period to bring suit.” Id. at 926.
