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

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:53:04 GMT, Manny Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> >George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>The problem with natural rights is that we all have different views of
> >> what should be on the list. Do you agree that we all have a natural
> >> right to medical care, whether we can afford it or not?
> >>
> >> Some make that argument. Does the Ninth Amendment require
> >> government-assured universal medical insurance?
> >>
> >> How do we decide which rights are in the list and which are not?
> >
> >Well, one thing we know is that for some action to be a right, it must
> >apply to everyone equally. Another thing we know is that your rights
> >cannot obligate someone else to do something for you.
> 
> Well, that's a good answer - it helps distinguish rights from
> nonrights.
> 
> But we don't know that actually, even though it is an answer.. "We"
> know that govt must pay for medical care for the poor. Or at least
> some among us think that medical care is a right.
> 
> Why must we believe your view of a "natural" right rather than someone
> else's view of a natural right?
> 
> Thus you have the
> >right to speak your mind because it doesn't obligate anyone else, and we
> >can apply it to everyone equally without ridiculous consequences. You
> >have the right to defend yourself, because that right doesn't obligate
> >anyone else, and everyone can exercise the right and all is well.
> 
> You are describing what YOU think should distinguish rights from
> nonrights.
> 
> Who says your taxonomy is the correct one, rather than Larry Tribe's
> list of rights?
> 
> >
> >But me claiming a "right" to healthcare obligates other people to provide
> >healthcare for me, hence it makes other people slaves of mine. A right
> >obviously cannot allow me to enslave people or allow me to become
> >enslaved. Therefore there can be no right to healthcare, education, etc.
> 
> Who says a right can not allow you to enslave others? I am sure many
> societies have had rights to own slaves. So who says the Ninth
> Amendment excludes slave ownership? Weren't slaves owned when the
> Ninth Amendment was passed?
> 
> >
> >It's not perfect, but it does coincide fairly close with my beliefs of
> >what right and wrong are.
> >
> 
> It's a good answer. For what rights SHOULD be. But we have a different
> problem - what rights ARE in the ninth amendment - not what rights
> SHOULD be in the Ninth.

nah, that's just a lawyer trick.  the 9th is quite clear -- citizens have rights
that have not been (and need not be) enumerated ... nothing more, nothing less. 
the government is further denied the authority to tell us what rights we *don't*
have by the 10th amendment.

trying to define every "right" that may or may not exist is a fool's errand.  

consequently, we don't have to specify what rights we have -- the constitution
specifies the *powers* granted to the government.  punishing those who choose to
use the "wrong" intoxicants violates the constitution simply because no *power*
to void the free will of the citizens has been encoded in the constitution.  nor
is any power delegated to the congress to outlaw lifeforms.

if you don't have the *right* to do to yourself as you see fit you simply have
no rights. making decisions about what you do to yourself is the ultimate right
and necessarily beyond the reach of legitimate law.  if your free will is
declared null and void, then any *right* you believe yourself to possess is
illusory.

no individual citizen has the *right* to void the self-directed free choices of
another -- thus there can be no *power* collectively granted to the government
to do so.  likewise, no individual citizen has the power to *punish* anothers'
self-directed choices, thus they subsequently cannot collectively grant such a
power to the government -- unless the constitution is amended to grant such
power to the government of course.  the framers left instructions on how to go
about changing the constituion in Article V.

the constitution doens't tell the citiznes what rights they have -- it tells the
government the limits of its power.  should we continue to go along with the
idea that our government is empowered to void our free will, we have no freedom
and no rights to argue about.

b
-- 
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.

visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com 

Ask these former drug warriors why drugwar doesn't work: 
http://www.leap.cc