Prisoners are good ones for this kind of thinking.
Time and again they will tell me that some esoteric meaning on a play of words means that certain evidence should not have been allowed, things like the spelling of a word, or perhaps that a differant law applied on a third tuesday after the full moon, or something stupid like that.
I then ask,“Well, despite the obvious flaw in the prosecution case, did you do it ?”
The answer is invariably “Yes”
Hmm. (I’m the one who started the OP in question) Here in the U.S., we have the ninth amendment. It means that anything not specifically covered by laws is presumed to be legal. So, if I find out a way to do something that closely resembles an illegal action in result, but dodges the letter of the law, I’ve found a code. Of course, I’d then probably be convicted on principle, but, the legality of the action itself is what I’m after.
Shhhh! You are giving away our cheat code!
I would like to compliment Jodi on a well-written and very insightful post, containing many things I would have liked to be smart enough to say, and articulate enough to say as well as she did.
Well, but that’s not what the 9th amendment means. While “everything not forbidden is permitted” is a legal principle consistant with the idea of limited government, it’s not the 9th amendment.
And every time you say it, does the duck come down and give you $100? 
No, it doesn’t. It means the rights set forth in the Constitution are not an exhaustive list, and we all have other inherent rights not therein enumerated. It has nothing to do with a presumption of legality of any given action. For example, a law that provides that “drugs are illegal” may be invalidated as unconstitutionally vague (because it doesn’t define drug wiht sufficient particularity), but it will not be held that the posession of cocaine is “presumed legal” because it is “not specifically covered” by the law. On the contrary, a defendant would not doubt be prosecuted anyway, because cocaine is obviously a drug, and it would be the burden of the defendant to prove that, gee, he didn’t know what a drug was for purposes of the law, because the law doesn’t say.
But constitutonal challenges based on vagueness and overbreadth implicate the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Ninth.
BRICKER – Thanks, man. I’m going to print that out and frame it. 
[Homer]
But what if I were to shake your hand in this wise?
[/Homer]
I’ve heard that Congress v1.1 would have enought cheat codes for a whole book.
L78or59oy55tkp22oe654
r25qx69wu501zyb565
QUOTE]*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
[
**And every time you say it, does the duck come down and give you $100? l] **
[/QUOTE]
That would, of course, be the “Secret Word” - which is something else entirely.
I remember last year getting a ticket from the parking department here at school. I wanted to fight it because there were at least (at last count) one billion reasons why I was completely and totally innocent of all wrong doing.
Well, one of the reasons was that the ticket claimed that I had a two door car. Wait a second, hold the presses people! You see, I had a three door car. This ticket was incorrect. It had false information on it and so clearly it must be thrown out. A loophole!
Naturally I brought this argument up to the traffic court when I went to appeal my fine. The judge heard the argument and determined that it would have, in no possible way, hindered my ability to realize the ticket was referencing my car. Pay the fine next case please.
And there it was. My loophole suddenly squeezed shut right as I was jumping through it, leaving me stuck, hovering in midair…and $20 poorer.