"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
The Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment Was created to prevent the importance of the constitution to be filled with sand box rules and rights. The Ninth Amendment prevents rules of laws to determine automatically that only pink shovels can be used and purple pals are the right of the people. The Ninth Amendment is the equalizer to prevent the government from micro-managing the people. The Ninth Amendment prevents the government from involving themselves into people’s life without invitation. So if you apply for a driver’s license, social services or government subsidized loans the application process defines how the individual gives up the rights to the limit to fulfill the agreement. Does that mean that the driver can be told to wear a seat belt? Yes Does it give the government the right to sell or publish personal information about the driver? No, because this is not appropriate use of the invitation. Does that mean when someone is on social services a person could be compelled to finger printing and drug testing? Maybe, social services are there to provide a certain level of help for a period of time. Drug testing to compel someone on social services to seek drug treatment would be appropriate to the invitation to government involvement. Social services using finger printing to prevent fraud of public? Yes, but social services tied to criminal prosecution is not society’s intent for social services. So, the government using the finger prints to detain or locate wanted criminals through the social services office is beyond the invitation. Does that mean if the government subsidized loans for a person does this allow the government to decide how the money is spent? Yes, because the person is inviting the government into the person’s life. If a person is totally self sufficient on their own property and uses all sort of ecological system to self contain everything on their own property does that person live free of government involvement? Does the Ninth Amendment give a family the right to raise a healthy family without interference? Depends what healthy means. Does this give the government the ability to govern the use of marijuana, prostitution and gambling?The choice to participate in the personal use of marijuana, prostitution and gambling is protected. Commerce is able to regulated by Congress sale, distribution, manufacturing of anything. Using United States currency could be covered by the invitation rule too. Meaning a person using United States currency gives up the right to buy certain goods and services. What does the Ninth Amendments mean?
Comments
Nah!
I believe the "equal protection clause" of the 14th amendment trumps any infringement on our civil rights.
We have a RIGHT to ownership and privacy over our bodies. Women explicitly have this right in Roe v. Wade. Therefore because of the equal protection clause, we ALL have ownership and a right to privacy of our bodies. We don't "lose" this RIGHT because we happen to be in our car at the time.
We are innocent until PROVEN guilty. With drug testing you are GUILTY until you prove your innocence. 100% violation of our civil rights.
We are entitled to property rights. If you don't own your land... then you don't ever really own anything that resides on it, do you?
By the very nature of owning something, one becomes a better steward of what he/she is owning.
So if one is 100% self sustaining on their OWN property, why would we then punish that person by taxing the mess out of them? We should be happy for that person. Wouldn't YOU like to be 100% self sustaining? I wish I was. That individual who is self sustaining would fight like Hell to keep it that way. The rest of us on the government dole could care less who is in charge... as long as they "promise" to take care of us. So self sustainability should be the goal. Think about it, if you didn't have to hop in a car, go to work, go to the grocery store, etc... wouldn't that give you a lot more time and resources to be a better "Christian" neighbor? (I'm using the term "Christian" because it's the most identifiable use of "The Golden Rule". It's supposed to be, anyway.)
I would rather be FREE and face the consequences.
I'm Not A Harvard Educated Constitutional Lawyer... But I Play One On The Internet.
After reading a little on the 9th amendment. I think it's more of a "how to" guide to reading the constitution.
I could be WAY OFF on this.
I think they were saying that if something "unknown" comes along, or something they forgot to put in, that future amendments to the constitution have to be in line with our existing inalienable rights. If they are in contradiction, they are then deemed unlawful by the 9th amendment. (My head hurts!)
Again... I could be WAY OFF on this.
For example... Automatic weapons. There weren't any automatic weapons back then, there are NOW. Since almost EVERYONE hunted back then (If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat), the constitution wasn't talking about the "RIGHT to hunt". They were talking about owning a weapon to: deter a tyrannical government, fight back an invasion, suppress an insurrection, self defense, law enforcement, to organize a militia, etc So because of that, unless there is a specific repeal of the 2nd amendment, "automatic weapons" are protected by the constitution and therefore, legal. (Man! My head hurts!)
Here's where I think you are WAY OFF.
You seem to suggest that the government has the right to deny civil liberties to individuals who happen to be the recipient of services provided BY the government.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
When the government enters a contract with a citizen to provide them of a service, the government does this FULLY AWARE that they are NOT to deny the inalienable rights of the citizen. If the government does not "want" to provide a service while maintaining strict adherence to the constitution... then they shouldn't offer the service. The government doesn't get to "set the terms" of the service AFTER the fact.
Examples: 1) The state of Florida does not have the authority of the constitution to forcibly make welfare recipients pee in a cup to then receive said welfare benefits. Because with a drug test, you are guilty and then have to prove your innocence. It's also a violation of one's reasonable right to privacy and ownership of one's body.
2) Forcing the Amish to participate in "Obamacare" is also an overreach of the governments power. The government can't MAKE someone pay for something that they don't want to use. Especially when it violates their religious beliefs. (Would we be better off with socialized medicine? I think so... it works for the military. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. But my "opinion" on whether it's good for you does not make it lawful or constitutional.)
We've been trained since birth to think that it's OK for the government to act in an unconstitutional manner. Our government acts without the rule of law to scare us into submission. It works, too! There are lots of things that I would like to protest, but I don't. That's because of fear. I fear my government. It's a shame. I do not believe the intent of our founding fathers was for us to fear them. Respect them, admire them, even to hold them in reverence ... but not to fear them.
Thank you sincerely for stirring my mind. I don't get to talk to many people about the actual real world applications of our constitution. Thanks again.
I think it merely points out that a citizens natural rights, both those listed in the 5th amendment AND those not specifically mentioned in the 5th amendment are to be upheld above any attempt to deny those rights. Once again that leaves the door wide open to interpretation of what is a person's natural rights are. I don't think it has anything to do with the "denial" of civil liberties in exchange for government services. For instance one should not lose "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law because you receive government assistance. Automobile insurance. Should I be forced to buy automobile insurance if I don't want it? Sure it's better for society as a whole to have that protection but is it against my natural rights? What comes first? Individual rights or what's best for the society as a whole?
Natural Rights, Car Insurance, Smoking, and a Cheeseburger.
If I cause harm to another individual because my car damaged them or their property... I need to own up to that responsibility and pay for the damages that I caused. Therefore, car insurance is constitutional.
If I eat 10 cheeseburgers a day... YOU don't get fat. I do.
If I smoke a cigarette, YOU do get sick from my excess smoke.
Indiana is going to pass a bill that bans public smoking except in casinos and bars. I guess the rights of the individuals who work in those institutions DON'T have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The hypocrisy of so called conservatives never ceases to amaze me. They are openly bowing down to the money and seemingly do not care what the future consequences are of their actions. If only more people would vote! That would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
I answered "YES" to all of the questions "pkrause12249" asked. I also believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment covers every one of those questions as well. For example: I have the right to get married to another living human being... she happens to be female . I do NOT have the right to deny anyone else that right to marry another living human being.
Am I making this to simple? (I'm asking. I'm not being sarcastic, OK)
If "I" have a RIGHT... then "YOU" have a RIGHT. Equal protection... it just sounds good saying it! "Equal Protection!" What's so cool about equal protection, is that it falls 100% in line with the Christian ethos of NOT JUDGING.
I happen to be in the overwhelming majority of people in this country that are heterosexual. That does NOT give me the right to deny or disparage a homosexual ANY of the same rights that I enjoy.
In conclusion (I guess) if it violates "EQUAL PROTECTION" than it's not constitutional. If it's not constitutional, It's not enforceable. BAM! Easy as pie!
What are natural rights? Are these the rights protected (not granted) by the Ninth Amendment? Are these the rights that the government can not restrict but is the duty of society to encourage? Are these the rights that allows a person to choose who to talk with, be friends with, be intimate with or share a life with? Are these the rights that allow a person to choose what to eat? Are these the rights that allow a person to choose to live or die? Are these the rights that allow a person to choose where to live? Are these the rights to an education? Are these the rights to choose medical care? Are these the right for science to pursue new knowledge for the betterment of society? These rights are rights that can not be restricted, but is the duty of society to nurture. As a government separates from society these natural or human rights become an issue. This is the “age of enlightenment”; a government created by the people for the people changes to a mono-government(a government for one) democracy ends and darkness begins.
Natural Rights, Car Insurance, Smoking, and a Cheeseburger.
If I cause harm to another individual because my car damaged them or their property... I need to own up to that responsibility and pay for the damages that I caused. Therefore, car insurance is constitutional.
If I eat 10 cheeseburgers a day... YOU don't get fat. I do.
If I smoke a cigarette, YOU do get sick from my excess smoke.
Indiana is going to pass a bill that bans public smoking except in casinos and bars. I guess the rights of the individuals who work in those institutions DON'T have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The hypocrisy of so called conservatives never ceases to amaze me. They are openly bowing down to the money and seemingly do not care what the future consequences are of their actions. If only more people would vote! That would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
I answered "YES" to all of the questions "pkrause12249" asked. I also believe that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment covers every one of those questions as well. For example: I have the right to get married to another living human being... she happens to be female . I do NOT have the right to deny anyone else that right to marry another living human being.
Am I making this to simple? (I'm asking. I'm not being sarcastic, OK)
If "I" have a RIGHT... then "YOU" have a RIGHT. Equal protection... it just sounds good saying it! "Equal Protection!" What's so cool about equal protection, is that it falls 100% in line with the Christian ethos of NOT JUDGING.
I happen to be in the overwhelming majority of people in this country that are heterosexual. That does NOT give me the right to deny or disparage a homosexual ANY of the same rights that I enjoy.
In conclusion (I guess) if it violates "EQUAL PROTECTION" than it's not constitutional. If it's not constitutional, It's not enforceable. BAM! Easy as pie!
I kind of disagree on the car insurance. If I damage someone else's property or car or harm another with my own vehicle then I am then responsible for payments to either replace said property or any medical bills incurred. I don't need insurance to do that. If I take a baseball bat to your car and or house and do damage I am responsible for restitution. Either pay up or go to jail or both. I have never heard of baseball bat insurance. I guess that's what I was getting at with the whole auto insurance thing. Let me be clear. I think that mandatory auto insurance is a good thing, I am just not sure that it's really constitutional.
I kind of disagree with the cheeseburger as well. I don't get fat but I may very well have to help pay for your medical problems that occur due to your excessive cheeseburger cravings. LOL
Insurance is actually a scam.
If we had "GROCERY INSURANCE" would the price of groceries go UP or DOWN?
They'd go up. No doubt about it.
Is insurance constitutional? Outside of medical insurance... I haven't spent to much time thinking about it... hmm.