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

Greetings All,

George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>...
> On 1 Dec 2003 12:46:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
> wrote:
> 

Many things which were removed from this response...

> >>
> >> 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. "
> 
> 
> The listing of 8 specific colors in the crayon box in the first 8
> amendments should not be construed to deny or disparage other
> crayon  colors in boxes in the homes of the people.
> 

Please show us which version of the US Constitution you are refering
to here Mr. Tyrebiter. Otherwise one is tempted to conclude you are
not actually talking about the Constitution at all.

Constitution and crayon are distinct words, do you accept this?

>
> How exactly do you know which colors are in those boxes in homes?
>

This question is meaningless in the context of a discussion about the
US Constitution. However, if you somehow believe you are being clever
in trying to draw an analogy between similar words used in the US
Constitution and your example, a belief which I do not share, then it
is none of your business which color crayons people have in their
homes, since their choice of crayon color can in no way harm you or
your property..

Just as it is not relevant which rights you would choose to see
enumerated in the Constitution, so long as we are talking about
behaviour that causes no active harm to other people or thier
property, all rights are legitimately held by soverigne individuals
such as you and I.

> 
> You don't.
> 

I have no more need to know what color crayons you prefer to keep in
your home than I do what type of behaviour you do in private so long
as you don't cause harm to non-consenting individuals or their
property. Why do you think you need to know about other peoples
private behaviour Mr. Tyrebiter?

>
> So too you don't know the list of rights provided by the Ninth
> Amendment.
>

There is no list, therefore all behaviour that does not interfer with
the life, liberty, or persuit of happiness of non-consenting others
will be allowed.
 
Next dumb example please.

>
> There are more rights than those in the first 8 amendments.
>

As long as we agree not to hurt other people or other peoples
property, then you can claim any rights you want.

> 
> But no one knows what they are. 
>

Maybe after a few more years of maturity and education it will come to
you. I suggest reading the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist
papers as a start to your journey of enlightenment about the US
Constitution. Other individuals have already posted relevant quotes
and links to them in this thread, and I have no doubt that you are
computer literate enough to find them independently of supervision.

Now, whether or not you are literate enough or honestly interested
enough to read them is another question.

>
>That too vague for law.
>

Then become a lawer if you wish. That way you too can help clarify it.

> 
> Gotta know what folks have a right to, and what they don't have a
> right to.
>

If you honestly need a list for yourself to live your life by there
are any number of people who will be glad to give you their personal
opinion. Why are you incapable of deciding for yourself? Are you
deficient somehow?

> 
> So the argument that we can use condoms because of the ninth 
> amendment
> seems flaky to me.
> 

You can use a condom simply because condoms exist and it would require
forceful intervention on someone elses part to prohibit you from doing
so. Who do you want to forcibly interer in your life to help you make
these decisions Mr. Tyrebiter?

>
> Unless you say the feds can't do anything.
>

The federal government should only be allowed to do what is clearly
and explicitly written in the US Constitution. Hasn't been that way in
over 150 years or so now, but it doesn't change the fact that it is
supposed to be that way.

> 
> But then the states could ban condoms.
>

The nation could pass a constitutional amendment making condoms legal
if it wanted to.  The Constitution can be changed, or didin't you know
that Mr. Tyrebiter? Many of the problems we have in the US today can
be traced to some changes in the US Constitution.

> 
> And the ninth would have no value - since the states need not follow
> it.
>

The ninth amendment would still prohibit National or Federal laws
against condom use regardless of whether or not individual states
allowed them,  so its value would not change.

Why do you think some powers were left to State governments in the
first place Mr. Tyrebiter? Have you any clue as to the purpose of
allowing the States to be soverigen, autonomous entitites created
themselves by the Constitution? Are you really this uneducated about
the early history of the United States? The wonderful thing about
knowledge is that it is freely avaliable, and very obvious when some
choose not to avail themselves of it.

William C Colley