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

On 1 Dec 2003 12:46:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
wrote:

>Greetings All,
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
>PROTECTED]>...
>> 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.
>> 
>
>It is the fundamental view that as long as you don't actively harm
>other people or their property agaisnt their consent, you can do as
>you please.

Yes. So what?
>
>Who am I  that I should be so empowered to tell you how to live your
>life, so long as you are harming me or mine? And vice-versa?
>
A person living with others, I suppose.

Thus we limit your right to drive on the left side of the road for the
common good.

But that's not relevant.

You are talking about what should be, and I am talking about what the
Ninth Amendment IS - not what it SHOULD BE.







>It's really that simple Mr. Tyrebiter. So simple in fact that it can
>be used as a self-contained Turing test.

Who cares?

A turing test box could have four legs beneath it or six.

That it is a turing test box does not tell me the number of legs.

How many legs in the Ninth, what are they like?

That's the question.


>
>>
>> There are more folks in the world than libertarians.
>>
>
>True but irrelevant. However, if everyone behaved as a libertarian
>then there would be far more justice in the world.
>
>>
>> For instance, our  Founding Fathers were not libertarians.
>> 
>
>Really? By what strange definition of libertarian do you base this
>statement on? The founding fathers didn't believe in free-will? What
>part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do you disagree
>with? Or would you rather have a government that was authoritarian,
>autocratic, communistic, despotic, dictatorial, intolerant, and
>totalitarian instead?
>
>>
>> So they did not mean to adopt its views.
>> 
>
>The US Declaration and US Constitution are written is simple English
>Mr. Tyrebiter. What parts of them do not sound libertarian to you?
>
>>
>> Thus the Ninth Amendment can't mean that govt must follow libertarian
>> principles.
>>
>
>No Ninth amendment does not contain the word libertarian, correct. It
>merely states that rights are not something to be taken away merely
>because they are not ennumerated.
> 
>>
>> So what does the thing mean?
>>
>
>Exactly what it says Mr. Tyrebiter. Please read it again..."The
>enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
>
>What words are confusing you? If the ignorance you are demonstrating
>isn't deliberate you can overcome it.
>
>
>>
>> Beats me. 
>>
>
>But not me. Keep trying Mr. Tyrebiter, you can figure it out. 
>
>>
>>Far as I can tell, no one knows what it means.
>>
>
>Then you tell wrong Mr. Tyrebiter. Anyone who can read English at a
>10th grade comprehension level is able to understand the simple
>sentence "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
>shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
>people. ". Use a dictionary if there are any words you don't
>understand.
>
> 
>> 
>> You have a consistent logical theory - which surely is not what was
>> intended.
>>
>
>The only thing intended by the 9th Amendment was to make it
>unambiguous that the Constitution does not restrict any rights of the
>people even though several specific rights are explicitly defined.
>
>Keep at that reading comprehension Mr. Tyrebiter, given what I read of
>your words on usenet I shall not disparage you the ability to construe
>its meaning and retain it long enough to figure it out.
>
>William C Colley