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

"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:09:01 GMT, brian bennett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> >i honestly can't tell if you're being facetious or just stupid.  your "rights"
> >extend only to the point that anothers' rights are not violated.  you only have
> >the "right" to have sex with those adults who grant their bodies to you.
> >
> >> >
> 
> That view is the view of libertarians.

i don't call myslef a libertarian, but i certainly espouse the view that to be
"free" a person must declare their ownership over themselves.

> There are more folks in the world than libertarians. For instance, our
> Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

no but they certainly knew how to sniff out tyranny over the hearts and minds of
men and sought to create the framework of a society which would protect the most
fundamental rights.
 
> So they did not mean to adopt its views.

nonsense -- the entire intent of the declaration, the revolution and the
constitution was to institute a system that protects people from the tyranny of
others.
 
> Thus the Ninth Amendment can't mean that govt must follow libertarian
> principles.

nope -- only that it follow the basic premise that "all men are created equal"
and entitled to live their lives as they see fit.
 
> So what does the thing mean?
> 
> Beats me. Far as I can tell, no one knows what it means.

as the bill of rights was hammered out, concerns were expressed that since only
certain rights were enumerated, it would be necessary to protect the citizens
from a situation in which the claim could be made that *only those rights*
specifically enumerated were protected.

trying to define every definable right was (and remains) an impossible task,
thus a blanket prohibition against the government deciding that we don't have
rights which were not enumerated was a good way to try to protect future
generations from government instituted tyranny.

they knew that tyranny potentially dwells in the hearts of those with power and
sought to give us a way to fight against encroachments on liberty which had not
yet been invented.

> You have a consistent logical theory - which surely is not what was
> intended.

lol!  i do what i can.

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