Re: DOES THE 9th AMENDMENT PROTECT RESPONSIBLE REC DRUG USE?

Manny Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> (ulTRAX) wrote: 
> > It seems clear that the original intent of this amendment was to
> > uphold John Locke's doctrine of natural rights... that rights exist
> > unto themselves and government must have some legitimate intent before
> > restricting them. 
> 
> You can't believe in natural rights and legitimate government. The two
> are mutually exclusive. The only legitimate government that can exist is 
> one where the citizen explicitly gives his consent to be ruled and taxed.

I was going to respond... but this isn't a thread about what the
philosophical basis for morally legitimate government, but the extent
the ninth amendment can be used to shield citizens from lazy and
abusive lawmakers.

> > So, can a case be made that that under the 9th amendment
> > scorched-earth laws written by Neanderthal or lazy politicians which
> > unjustly restrict the rights of responsible citizens are
> > unconstitutional? Can a case be made that the 9th REQUIRES laws to be
> > written in ways that clearly state legitimate intent, target ONLY a
> > well-defined problem, and contain protections to maximize the freedoms
> > of
> > responsible people? 
>  
> > Does the 9th protect responsible recreational drug use? 
> 
> It protects all drug use. If you are not harming anyone else, you can 
> ingest any drug as "irresponsibly" as you wish. Unfortunately, the Ninth 
> Amendment is virtually ignored by the courts, so forget about it.

We are speaking now of LEGAL use of these now banned substances.
Claiming a right is one thing... establishing the legal precedent is
another.

As for the ninth being virtually ignored... you make it sound as if
we, as citizens, should just give up rather than organize to educate
others and push for some test cases that could establish more legal
precedent. As long as this amendment has not been amended away... it's
still the law of the land. Citizens should take advantage if this as
the pro-gun rights crowd does of the 2ed. In fact I believe a better
case for a right to bear arms is in the ninth. Are they about
protecting ALL rights... or just gun rights? It's too bad the NRA
didn't become the National Bill of Rights Association.