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:
> 
> >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?
>

Do you agree with this premis or not? If you do you basically act as a
libertarian. If you don't then you are prone to act in ways that
actively harm other people against their will.


> >
> >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.
>

So you will grant me power to tell you how to live your life then Mr.
Tyrebiter? Why would you ever do something so immature?

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

Ah, but my right to drive on the left side of the road is only
infringed upon on public roads or private roads that I don't own. If I
drive on my own road I can drive any way I please.

> 
> But that's not relevant.
>

There is a difference between private behaviour and public behaviour,
you don't find that relevant? Well, it was your own statement you are
calling irrelevant, so do continue.

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

No need for confusion, just read it again. As with all statements it
is self-evidently clear.
 
> 
> 
> >It's really that simple Mr. Tyrebiter. So simple in fact that it can
> >be used as a self-contained Turing test.
> 
> Who cares?
>

Anyone who wishes to be considered a rational, intelligent, individual
capable of learning I suppose.

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

A turing test is not defined by the number of appendeges Mr.
Tyrebiter, but rather by its ability to convince another intelligent
entity that it too is intelligent.

Or didn't you  know this?

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

Shall I post the definition of a Turing test for you Mr. Tyrebiter? It
has nothing to do with legs or boxes, just as the Nineth amendment has
nothing to do with lists.

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

Ah, so you really are incapable of parsing English. My apologies Mr.
Tyrebiter, I thougt I was conversing with someone who could make
sense.

> 
> That's the question.
>

But only you are interested in the answer. Go figure.
 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> 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

William C Colley