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

On 2 Dec 2003 11:26:49 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C Colley)
wrote:

>Greetings All,
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL 
>PROTECTED]>...
>> 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 degree that the ability of citizens to persue life, liberty,
>and happiness is maximized of course.
>
>>
>> That's the problem.
>> 
>
>Not for me it isn't. Why is it a problem for you? Shouldn't everyone
>be as equally free as you are?


Who cares what SHOULD be?

The question is what the Ninth Amendment IS, not what it SHOULD be.

I think we should put everyone caught with a gun in jail for a minimum
of six months.

But that is not the law, so what I think the law should be is not
relevant to what it is.

Your view that we should maximize liberty is your own view, and I have
no reason to think that it IS the law.

I think no one knows what the Ninth Amendment means. You think it
means maximization of liberty, I don't agree.

There seems to be no way to decide which of is is correct.

Thus it's insufficiently clear to be law.