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?
>

So do you accept this view or not?

> >
> >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.
> 

Specify the amount of power you wish to grant me over your life Mr.
Tyrebiter.

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

I don't own those roads Mr. Tyrebiter, therefore I have no rights to
drive on them. Now if I own the road then I can drive any way I
please. See the difference?

> 
> But that's not relevant.
>

But you raised the point. Do you often bring up irrelevant points in
trying to make an argument?

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

I am reading the words Mr. Tyrebiter, you are imagining all sorts of
things uniqe to your own experience. Why don't YOU try cutting and
pasting the text of the ninth amendment, followed by YOUR
interpretation of the words?


> 
> >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 trying to be understood by others I guess, sort of the point of
a Turing test isn't it?
 
>
> A turing test box could have four legs beneath it or six.
>

Ah, you don't know what a Turing test is. Shall I post a definition or
would you be so kind as to?

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

Legs are irrelevant to a Turing test,  are they not Mr. Tyrebiter?

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

Just as legs are irrelevant to the Ninth Amendment.

>  
> That's the question.
>

For you, perhaps. 
 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> 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