Killing the Ninth Amendment.... softly... with their wrongs?

That's an interesting idea, Tartarin. The Ninth Amendment is not one that's discussed much.

As far as this administration being particularly abusive of that amendment, I'm not sure. Last night I caught on the news a story about a federal court deciding whether Ashcroft can overturn Oregon's law giving people the right to physician-assisted suicide. An older guy (man on the street) was interviewed about it and said,"This administration believes in states' rights. Except some of the time."

That about sums it up, though I know states' rights aren't the same as individual rights. The same principle is at work now, I think...

If you read the writings of the founding fathers they mentioned a few specific "natural rights" that have pretty much gone by the wayside over the years.

The power of Emminent Domain allows the government to take an individuals property. Minimum wage laws interfere with an individual's right to hire and pay as they deem fit. Conservation laws interfere with the natural right to do with your property (land) as you may please. They listed rights against slander (which is now law rather than a n enumerated right) which have been "qualified" to basically allow slander against "public personnas". The right to Freedom of Movement has been surpressed for decades (Traveled to Cuba lately?). In Blackstone's Commentaries on the 9th Amendment, he (he was the 1st Chief Justice of the USSC) mentions the right to life and states the fetus inherits the natural rights of man at the time the fetus first stirs in the womb. Current abortion law doesn't carry on that view.

All of these rights that the founding fathers spoke of have been infringed on since the 9th Amendment was passed. Now, one can argue that some of them were over-riden because they conflicted with other rights of other people or that the needs of society as a whole overrode the rights of the individual but they've still all been trampled over the years.

The 9th Amendment is all but useless. We've shifted since it was passed from a society where the individual was preemminent to one where the indivivudal is subordinate to society.

"The 9th Amendment is all but useless." But in that case, Fishin', it isn't lost as law. It simply is a matter of the individual (or "class") citing it, isn't it? (And fighting for it!) Use it or lose it?

Weren't you interested in the various arguments pro and con given in the findlaw site?

D'art -- it's a matter, of course, of my right being more important or "closer to the intention of the founders, etc." The right to die thing is horrific -- Of course we should have a right to die at a time of our choosing. Anything else is residual barbarism.

It's also a matter of the individual being not just up against the community, Fishin', but (in the case of right to die) up against a spurious entity: the church. Another argument for gettin' religion out of politics. Religion should never trump.

I don't think citing it will save it (or ressurect it..). At this point there is so much precendent against it it would be hard to argue that something is serious enough to warrant a court overturning some government program or policy. I think most courts would say "There are 10,000 examples of situations very similar to X and they've all been allowed and seen as Constitutional so why should this case be any different?". If there were only a handful of examples it wouldn't be so hard to argue but there are a ton of them.



The annotations given cover the overall status of the Amendment is pretty brief terms. Could a 9th Amenedment case survive? It's possible. But, using your opening comments, I'd doubt that a 9th Amendment case against the Patriot Act for example, would get very far. The courts (and we as a whole) have swallowed the "common good" concept hook, line and sinker so in today's society the "common good" argument tends to outweigh the 9th Amendment protections.

If we went back to interpreting the 9th Amendment as it was discussed when it was ratified we'd wipe out a whole slew of existing law.

Well hell, Fishin', let's do that!

On the Oregon Assisted Suicide issue, Ashcroft's LEGAL basis for intervening has nothing to do with any church. It may very well be his personal motivation for interveneing but his legal basis is that the Federal government DOES have authority to regulate the use of controlled drugs and medical procedure.

To fight it on a 9th Amendment basis it would have to be proven that the individuals natural right to make the determination of when and how they will die outweighs the government's interest in regulating drugs and medical practice and if the case won it could very well result in the dismantling of the FDA as well as the CDC. At the same time, since the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to apply to all levels of government, it could also eliminate State level medical licensing as well as prevent the State of OR from passing a law on Assisted Suicide one way or the other.

The courts would have to rule that the individuals's right to terminate their life outweighs the common good of having our medical professionals licensed, our drugs tested for safety, etc.. That's a pretty big bite for any court to take.

lmao Well, I tend to agree with ya but.. I think the change would be pretty traumatic to the country as a whole!

fishin' - Excellent comments. I would expand your statement to read that the Constitution itself is largely ignored by those who feign governing by it.

Definitely -- and/or used it ways it was never meant to be used. But I go back to the wise person who commented that the Constitution is about limiting government, not about empowering. We start with freedom and only ennumerate specific, practical limitations.

Take the death thing: It makes perfect sense that a person (in right mind, etc. etc.) should not be prevented from taking his/her life by choice; it makes perfect sense that he/she shouldn't arrange to be buried uphill from a valued water supply.