Just cuz it is void of any semantic meaning that adds anything to the Constitution as originally ratified. At least, that to date has always been the view of their legally-trained-and-experienced minds.
Well…I can see how one must be careful with it else we could say I have a right to a Snickers candy bar.
That said I think it is wrong to find a right to privacy in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments and I think it is wrong to find self defense in the 2nd.
Indeed attaching self defense to the 2nd changes its entire character. Privacy not so much but still, why change the character of those either?
If they think there is an implied right in the language of the Constitution then the 9th ought to be where they draw it out from. Otherwise they are literally changing the language of the Constitution which seems wrong.
(To be clear I support a right to privacy and self defense…just arguing some finer points.)
Not sure my post just above (#22) is clear.
For the sake of argument let’s say the country passes a new Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment (don’t jump on me gun rights folks).
Since the SCOTUS embedded a right to self defense in the 2nd would that mean our right to self defense went out the window if the 2nd was repealed?
That seems crazy to me and self defense attached to the 2nd re-writes it in a way that is absolutely not indicated by the text.
Of course we have a right to self defense so place it under the 9th Amendment where it belongs then whatever other changes are made to the Constitution that right remains. If by some bizarre thinking they want to preclude a right to self defense then write an Amendment that says it is not a right enjoyed by the people.
I think the 9th’s “intent” was to act as a sort of elastic clause for the Bill of Rights, but it was worded in such a way that it could be so abused they decided to disregard it completely to prevent the fallout from what might happen.
I always interpreted the ninth/tenth as “if the constitution doesn’t explicitly grant government the power to restrict personal freedom they do not have that power”.
I am continually disappointed that no one else seems to interpret it the same way.
That’s a pretty tight interpretation. In South Florida, we are under lawn watering restrictions due to lack of rain. I see nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to restrict my personal freedom to water my lawn. Therefore, under your interpretation, the local ordinance violates the 9th amendment. Same way with laws regarding seat belts, money laundering, littering, child prostitution, and subway fare jumping…
You could, perhaps, read the 10th that way, but not the 9th. That one just says there can be rights that the Constitution does not specify but are rights all the same.
The 10th can also mean that the “powers delegated to the people” can in turn be delegated by the people to the federal government, via actions by their elected representatives. IOW, the 10th doesn’t really mean anything anyway.
Under that interpretation, couldn’t Congress also ignore the rights explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights as well?
How? The Constitution *guarantees *rights that cannot be abridged by mere legislation.
That’s about how I interpreted it also. I just don’t “go for” the idea that we don’t have some right unless someone else says we do. It bothers me.
Maybe I’m an anarchist and just don’t know it.
Are you speaking up for the right to hammer in the morning, and again hammer in the evening, all over this land? By gosh, you just might be an anarchist.
Or a folkie. Which is worse.
The Ninth is pretty much dead. It essentially says that some things may be constitutional rights but doesn’t say what they are. So who can authoritatively say what those rights are?
Is the right to privacy a constitutional right? Is the right to vote? The right to have an abortion? The right to serve in the military? The right to secede from the United States? The right to travel? The right to marry somebody who’s the same sex? The right to euthanasia? The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? All of these things have been claimed as an unenumerated right at some point. If you support the idea under debate then you probably agree it’s an unenumerated right and if you’re against it, you probably think it isn’t an unenumerated right.
But the Ninth Amendment gives no guidance. It doesn’t outline a procedure for seperating unenumerated rights from non-existent rights.
So the fear that the Constitution would be viewed as an exhaustive list of enumerated rights and we possess no others has come to pass by default? The 9th was put there to say it is not an exhaustive list but seems you are saying that as a practical matter it is.
Bummer…
Gee, if we only had a body with the authority to state uneuivocably what the Consitutition means, not whenever it feels like it, but only when a real controversy involving the Constitution or the laws passed and treaties made under it is brought before it! You’d have thought the Founding Fathers in their wisdom would have placed this sort of judiciary function in some body or other, wouldn’t you?
Maybe I am -
But within limits. If I hammer constantly at all hours of the night, I am in violation of local laws about disturbing the peace, excessive noise etc 
And they could have called it “The Bitchin’ Group of BlackRobeWearing Dudes and doing JudgeyStuff”.
How about a catchy name, like maybe The Supremes 
You see, what’s really funny is that the judges who claim to be textualists or originalists are the ones who usually ignore the clear purpose of the ninth amendment. They’re the ones who don’t want to identify new rights protected by the constitution (not to say they’re not sometimes right–but that their “original intent” or “textualism” theories of constitutional interpretation tend to skip 9/10).
While I completely agree with you, I’d like to have DSYoungEsq post here, if he sees the thread, explaining an alternative scenario that makes sense, if not what I believe the FF intended? Roughly, the view he propounds is that the Ninth Amendment means that the fact that some rights are enumerated is not to be taken to mean that they are the only rights that can be gtuaranteed – that is, the State governments and their constitutions, and Congress by statute, may recognize other rights, which do not have constitutional validity but only statutory or state-level validity. Absent this guarantee, someone might be able to make the argument that the inalienable rights are those spelled out in the Constitution as amended, and only those – that if the Federal Constitution does not guarantee the right to an education, neither may a state.