We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, December 28. 2012
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Supposedly handcuffed the government and liberated people. Composed by James Madison, ratified 1791, now often disparaged as "meaningless inkblots" by statists whose hunger for power accepts no bounds
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This is exactly the problem in that we do not enforce all laws equally. Just as Obama will no longer deport illegal aliens (which by the way should make him eligible for impeachment) the justice department spend most of their time on enforcing very laws along very ideological lines. Our supreme court is responsible for this problem and that will only get worse as Obama appoints new Supreme Court Judges.
illegal aliens aren't deported. they're subject to removal or cancellation of removal or other forms of relief, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as 8 C.F.R. Title 8: Aliens and Nationality.
But, they would argue, things have changed. We have so much more at our disposal now that Madison did not understand or expect.
I use these Amendments when I'm teaching younger people at my office about digital media. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I point out. Of course, there doesn't need to be. That right is not explicitly laid out, but it is inferred by the fact that property rights provide a level of 'privacy' which the government can't overstep, but also with these Amendments, which show that certain rights are maintained by the people and protected by the Constitution.
Sadly, many statists believe that technology has allowed our capabilities to trump our rights. There is a belief that we are more intelligent today than our forefathers. I disagree, primarily because the areas where we are more intelligent (science, technology, etc.) have benefited while the areas where they were more intelligent (philosophy and history) have withered.
They crafted their views with the knowledge that things would change, but that the basic precepts they laid out would still be meaningful even with this change.
The founders let principles be as trees that can branch indefinitely. The trees together to form a sort of sacred grove.
Two politicians both elected to 'prune the grove': one will do it by pruning the trees, the other will uproot trees, and both will be pruning the grove.
The language is missing the term of distinction between the two, so every action memo has to start by newly defining the terms. Meanwhile, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
these are complex issues, not suited for sloganeering. but this is what the USSC says,
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS v. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) 330 U.S. 75, 96,
The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail. Again this Court must balance the extent of the guarantees of freedom against a congressional enactment to protect a democratic society against the supposed evil ...
against "the supposed evil"
So..."the supposed evil" could be almost anything. Meaning freedoms are in jeopardy whenever a "supposed evil" rears its ugly head.
Thus, 'fairness' and 'equality' are needed to fight a "supposed evil" in a democracy, the "supposed evil" being wealth and privilege as defined by a select few.
A dangerous path.
These two amendments are quite easy to understand, for all the sophistry the Supremes employ to lie about their meaning.
The 9th means that the list of things Congress may do (in Article I, section 8) is the full, exhaustive list. (Note: Federalist #41 explains why the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses do not confer any additional powers.)
Conversely, the 10th means that the list of things Congress may not do (in Article I, section 9 plus the first eight amendments) is not the complete list.
Together, then, these two amendments spell out that any topic not addressed in the Constitution (including any that arise from inventions after it was made) is not a federal power. Any power over such subject matter is therefore either a state power, or an individual right.
I do this stuff for a living, and there's very, very little in constitutional law that isn't complex, given the broad brush strokes of constitutional language (how much process is due? what searches are reasonable?) . if the concepts in the 9A and 10A were that clear, the USSC wouldn't continually struggle with the the interplay of these amendments and the 14A and powers reserved to the states.
"necessary and proper" is from Art 1, Sec. 8 clause 18, not the 9A or 10A, and while Federalist Papers are occasionally cited by the courts as persuasive, they are not binding. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and Wickard are among the prominent necessary and proper cases, as I'm sure you know.
I picked up a copy of Original Meanings at one time because it is near impossible to understand how the original meaning of the Constitution have been distorted. But the meanings have been distorted by relying on precedents based on precedents instead of the original meanings. And when law is practiced by lawyers that argue over what the meaning of "is" is, we get closer to utilizing the 2nd ammendment to correct the precedents. Adams was right, the Constitution was only for a moral and religious people. All others parse "is" into precedents that gather ever increasing power for government.
in other words, you'll supply the "original meaning". who needs the courts or precedent when we have "militia" police NY Times editorial writers skool teachers Alex Jones MSNBC bloggers blogger commenters to interpret what "original meanings" really meant. I'm guessing you don't like Marbury v. Madison, but you don't have any choice about it.
I'd love to know the opinions of the founding fathers on the 14A, but my copy of the Federalist Papers must be abridged or something. maybe the cat got into it.
and why the inchoate threat of gun violence to "correct the precedents". why not just say you'll start shooting up the place if you don't get what you want? if you want a revolution, call it a revolution.
and finally, I don't give a flying rat about what adams thought about who the constitution is for. its for the amoral, immoral, moral, religious, atheists, agnostics, law abiding, criminals, citizens, residents, illegals. even protestants and soccer players.
There are no Protestants on the current court. All are Catholic or Jewish. This is evidence that the true target of the worldwide tumult is the souther white protestant male. The only heretics in the Jesuit splinter, the SMOM (AKA the Roman Empire)'s eyes. The SMOM? The Knights of Malta --which include almost all the national security apparatus' chiefs and czars. IOW, it's not really the commies, nor the elders of Zion, it's the Jesuits, still working on Henry the Eighth.
Just so's you'll know!
yeh --''buddy'' always gives it away --St. Moritz, the Riviera, Aspen, all full of soccer players named buddy or bubba for-short.
How wrong the founding fathers were! They could not see the rise of ideologies which would unite people in surrendering their liberty and prosperity to bureaucracies. They could not foresee that Congress would prefer to wallow in bribes whilst voting its authority away to the President, who would be happy to accept it, all with the approval of the Supreme Court.
While the fathers' prescription for liberty is correct: minimal and divided government, their analysis of politics and human nature is wholly wrong. Look at the fruits of the their invention: a catastrophe, when judged by their own standards.
There is no going back, there is only going on. Any future attempt a creating a new shining city on the hill will have to acknowledge the vileness of human nature that the fall of the American republic has exposed.
looking back at the "golden age" or the "good ol' days" is a dry well. regional financial interests, parties and haves vs have nots plagued the country from articles of confederation days. the founders wrote a document with the infamous 3/5 clause and condoned slavery, saddling the government with band aid attempts to compromise until the civil war brought the issue to a head and three more constitutional amendments were then needed to fix that oversight, especially the 14A which (in theory but not always in practice) guaranteed basic federal constitutional rights by restricting the states. then another 80 years of separate but equal. and police could still beat a confession out of suspects until Miranda.
all in all though, the golden age lies ahead, not behind. what sane individual would want to return to the world of Commander McBragg 1795?
And look at our own time: "anti-discrimination" laws restricting the freedom of people to choose with whom to associate; attempts to abolish Constitutional rights (the 1st and 2nd amendments) urged by the President and press and the new fifth branch of government, the NGO; taxation at rates that would embarrass divinely-appointed kings; surrender of the American people's sovereignty to international tyrants; bureaucrats with more power to compel individual lives than was dreamt of by Savonarola; etc.
What sane individual would can defend the current order? And yet tens of millions not only approve, they want more tyranny, more corruption, more oppression.
The founding fathers were wrong. People do not wish to be free. Hatred is their first emotion and punishing the other, their first desire; fear is their second emotion, and swaddling by the mother state, their second desire. Freedom doesn't make the top ten.
There is no golden age in the future either. To be on the side of history, is an excuse for mass murder and oppression.
...but seeing it as hopeless is exactly what they want us to do.
you have one vision of america, I have another. you can complain or you can deal. little barry is an incompetent schlub who got elected. this wasn't the first time and it won't be the last time. so what are you going to do, make more excuses? assert moronic statements about how millions actually want more oppression? really? if you asked your neighbor if he wants to join you in a round of hatred and punishment, is he more likely to go along or sic his dog on you?
that's not a rhetorical question.
"You wear a mask, and your face grows to fit it." George Orwell wrote that in an essay called, “Shooting an Elephant”. Its a warning about becoming the person you portray yourself as. Angry, fearful internet pundit with a persecution complex? no thanks.