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

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:39:35 GMT, brian bennett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr." wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>
>to the maximum degree -- the government is denied a power to arbitrarily decide
>that the citizens *don't* have rights.  the citizens don't have to define all
>their rights to prevent the government from taking them away.
>
>> That's the problem.
>
>no, the problem appears to be that you can't comprehend simple english -- i
>suppose we can blame the "education" system.
> 
>> Did Jefferson own slaves?
>
>what has that got to do with it?  jefferson had *absolutely nothing* to do with
>drafting the constitution -- but it isn't suprising that you never learned that.

I don't think that the intent of those writing the constitution was to
adopt full-bore libertarianism. For instance, they believed in
slavery, therefore they were not libertarians.

I think their intent matters some in figuring out how to apply the
ninth amendment.

Since they were not full-bore libertarians, it is not persuasive to
argue that they meant the ninth amendment to generate strictly
libertarian laws.


> 
>b