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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:02:27 GMT, brian bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:43:02 -0500, "Larry Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> >> 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? If
>> >> so... what else? ;-)
>> >
>> >No.   See Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's book on the matter.   She discusses
>> >the 9th as a dead amendment.   SCOTUS has decided to ignore it, although it
>> >is frequently cited in briefs.   See my post, "The Bill of NO Rights."
>> 
>> Some argue that we have a right to medical care, whether we can afford
>> it or not.
>
>you certainly have a "right" to medical care -- what you don't have is the
>"right" to expect others to provide it for you. 

So you have one idea about the right, and other folks have a different
view about the right.

That's my point - we have disagreement about what our "natural rights"
comprise.







 more importantly perhaps, no
>one has the "right" to interfere in your medical care.
>
>> Is that a right protected by the Ninth Amendment?
>
>the right to do with one's body and mind as one wishes is certainly covered by
>the 9th. 

But it isn't certain. Most Americans would not agree than the ninth
amendment gives you the right to take heroin.

There is no agreement on what is included.

That makes it unworkable.




 more importantly, the 10th says the government does not have the
power
>to say what rights the citizens *don't* have.

And you want to have one person - you - decide what the official list
of rights are.

Others want a different person - them - to decide what the official
list of rights are.

I have my own notion of what SHOULD be a right, a third list.

It's too uncertain.

We must write down the rights so we all can agree on what the list
includes.





>
>you'll notice that there is no specific "right to breathe" enumerated -- do you
>believe you have a "right" to breathe?

No. But what I believe is just one person's view.

You have a different view.

Mr Ashcroft has another view.

Jimmy Carter has a different view.

There is no clarity about the list of rights included in the ninth
amentdment. That can't work as "law."


>
>the point of the constitution is to protect the citizens from the abuses and
>tyrannies historically visited upon peoples by those who held the reins of
>power.  to that end, it is not intended to be a laundry list of rights and
>freedoms -- it is instead intended as a shackle upon those who have been granted
>powers to act over us.

So you say. Others such as Gary Wills say that after the disaster of
the previous shot at govt, the states understood that we needed a
strong central govt, so we wrote the current Constitution to provide
more central control.

That seems to cut a different way from your theory.

And even if you have a correct theory, even those who agree with you
will have different views of what the Ninth Amendment provides.

I don't think it's sufficiently clear to provide "law."




> 
>> IF not, how do we know which rights are included in the Ninth
>> Amendment and which are not?
>
>any and all "rights" you wish to claim for yourself which do not violate the
>"rights" of others are covered by the 9th. 

That is what you would like the Ninth Amendment to mean, and others
want it to mean something else. I doubt the founding fathers were
libertarians, given they had slaves and other laws limiting freedoms
were widespread.

So folks don't agree with your notion, and history does not support
your theory.

We need to write down something less vague to have it work as "law."



 it is supremely retarded to believe
>that all rights that exist must be enumerated to be protected by the
>constitution -- that is the whole point of the 9th amendment.

And it is not law to have a vague notion of what is a right.

You have to have some greater clarity.



>
>our government has not been granted the power to determine what rights exist for
>the citizens -- indeed the 10th amendment specifically prohibits them from doing
>so.
>
Ok. I have the right to medical care, whether I can pay for it or not.





>b