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

On 2 Dec 2003 07:50:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
wrote:

>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..

That is a comment indicating the sort of world you desire.

But the sort of world you desire is not likely the same thing as the
sort of world desired by those writing the Constitution. You are
arguing about what the Ninth Amendment SHOULD be, and I am saying that
we can not tell if that is what it IS.


>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.

According to you, and a few others. For instance, I posted a warning a
few years ago to candidates running against libertarians. A man named
Low Tax Looper had killed his opponent, and then got five percent in
the election. I worried that libertarians, in order to reach a five
percent level, might be tempted to similarly shoot dead their
opponents.  

That would be their best shot at getting to such a degree of support.

Fortunately, we did not have carnage that election year, but I think
it demonstrates my point, that few share your view of how things ought
to be. 

Why do you think that the founders, who condoned slavery and other
laws limiting liberty, would want to adopt your "way out" notions?

.


>
>> 
>> 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?

I am surely deficient in many ways.

But my traits, nor my idea of an ideal world, is not relevant to
knowing what the Ninth Amendment means.

You have a view of what it SHOULD mean, but it's a "way out" view
which I doubt was intended.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would enjoy seeing it.


>
>> 
>> 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.

Many things we find obvious are not true.




>
>William C Colley