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

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:35:31 GMT, brian bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"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.

To a degree. What degree?

That's the problem.

Did Jefferson own slaves?


> 
>> 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