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

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:23:27 GMT, brian bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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 ..


Ok, fine. I have the right to medical care, whether I can afford to
pay or not.

Glad you agree.

. nothing more, nothing less. 
>the government is further denied the authority to tell us what rights we *don't*
>have by the 10th amendment.

So true. Medical care is a great example - the govt doesn't have the
right to deprive me of my right to such care.


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

Ok. I have the right to have sex with all women in families with
incomes lower than my own household income.

Great idea. That the govt would dare interfere with my right is
absurd.

Once such a right did exist in the top lord in an area - he had a
right to first have sex with new brides.

Doesn't that right still exist?

>
>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.

So by your view the govt has no right to requrie us to drive only on
the right side of the road, because such a right was never granted to
govt.

Ok.

No right to ban private ownership of nuclear bombs.

No right to build a capital building with bathrooms in it. The word
bathroom does not exist in the constitution.

I doubt that's what they had in mind.

But you give a good answer - that the central govt can't do very much
at all.

But that's not a view which we all agree on.

And law must involve some clear lines about what is permitted and what
is not.

Folks just don't agree on what's in the Ninth Amendment.

So it's worthless.

As law.

You may be correct as to what is SHOULD mean, but not many agree with
you.

And law must involve agreement as to what it says.

It can't vary from judge to judge. From cop to cop.






>
>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