I have never understood the Ninth Amendment

[warrior1]

Could it anyone here but in layman's terms?

thanks

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[fenriswolf]

1. why don't you post it along with your question?

*edit* nm here it is

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[fenriswolf]

4. i think it means

people cannot use the constitution or subvert the language so that in order to uphold the constitution some of the constitutional rights have to be stripped from other people.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Don't let anyone convince you of this lame explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ukix4iAmWw

[AlCzervik]

3. i found this, it's helpful.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The idea of a Bill of Rights
worried some of the founders greatly. They feared that, by listing rights not to be infringed by the government, rights that were not listed might be subject to government interference because such interference was not specifically prohibited. The Ninth Amendment was written in an attempt to preclude such abuse.

Originally, the Ninth Amendment
was a negative statement. In other words, it prevented the Bill of Rights from increasing government powers by limiting those powers solely to what was listed. In more recent years, however, the amendment has been considered in some court cases to be positive, that it confirmed the existence of rights not otherwise listed but still protected. The right to privacy, for example, while not otherwise listed (although strongly implied in the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) has enjoyed such decisions under the protections of the Ninth Amendment as Griswold v. Connecticut (see also Privacy).

http://ladylibrty.com/9th_amendment.html

[tkmorris]

6. And THAT is the correct answer........

[alfredo]

11. There's our right to privacy.

[petronius]

5. It's saying that the Constitution is not an exhaustive list of all the rights

that we have. In other words, just because something isn't mentioned in the C doesn't mean it isn't a right...

[originalpckelly]

9. Not just that, if you look at the various amendments, most of them talk about the government...

not being able to do something:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't say we have the right of free speech, it says the Congress may not pass a law outlawing free speech.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say we can keep and bear arms, it says the government may not keep us from doing that.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It doesn't say we have the right to a house without soldiers, it says the government may not house soldiers in our dwellings outside of war or without a law describing it in war.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It does partly say we have the right, but once again, we see that it is really about government action being prohibited.

This goes on and on for most of the amendments. The Bill of Rights prohibits certain powers, it does not extend rights.

It is because of the structure of this bill that the Federalists feared the Congress would assume more powers because a lack of prohibition of a power implies the power is given.

Well, as circumstances change, new powers present themselves, so it's nearly impossible to forbid every unjust power a government may claim.

That's why the structure of the original part of the US Constitution allows only certain powers.


Quite frankly, the 9th amendment has been set aside, and the federal government has assumed a whole mess of powers that were not forbidden expressly in the US Constitution. Wiretapping is one, the government simply doesn't have the ability to wiretap, if it is not granted that power in the US Constitution, however, FDR and earlier Presidents assumed the power on themselves without regard to the US Constitution. It went unchallenged until the 1960s when a man who used a pay phone, which had been previously bugged, appealed his case. The decision, often referred to as the Katz case, allowed the federal government to wiretap, but only with a warrant.

However, the ability to wiretap isn't actually in the US Constitution, and if we were following the US Constitution, it would be necessary to amend it to allow that power. Until that time, every wiretap is technically unconstitutional.

[Township75]

14. Some clarification, please

""A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""

I just picked this one because it is the first amendment listed that I notice this.

If you say : It doesn't say we can keep and bear arms, it says the government may not keep us from doing that.

than what "right" in the 2A are they talking about?

[RoyGBiv]

18. The "right" not to be controlled by your government ...

The people who wrote the Constitution were intellectuals who actually thought about things.

If you begin with the notion that rights are inalienable, granted by a creator, nature, whatever, i.e. not subject to human interference, then you have a bit of a problem with something like gun ownership. The theory of a inalienable right dictates that an individual has it regardless of any other factors, e.g. the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. To keep and bear arms might be construed by some to imply that one has a right to have a gun even if one cannot afford to purchase one, does not have the knowledge to build one of their own, etc. But, the second amendment makes clear that the right of gun ownership may not be infringed by a government. Other factors could in fact prevent a person from owning a gun, to wit, his or her inability to purchase, build, etc. one.

[originalpckelly]

22. I meant that instead of simply saying we have the right to bear arms...

they prevented the government from taking that right away.

It is a prohibition of government action. The problem was that you can't create a complete list of things the federal government can't do, as circumstances change and new powers present themselves to the government.

The Federalists rightly worried that a lack of a prohibited action would cause the government to assume a power that wasn't expressly forbidden it.

Article II of the US Constitution limits powers by only declaring what powers the federal government has, with the assumption that the omitted ones are not granted to it.

You see what they were worried about?

In fact, as I pointed out, their worries came true.

I hope that clears it up.

[originalpckelly]

7. The US Constitution was opposed by the anti-Federalists who wanted a bill of rights.

The Federalists did not want a bill of rights, claiming that they would be used to deny other rights, simply because they could not list all of them in the document, and by not denying the government powers, it could be assumed that those powers existed. The Federalists have been proved correct, as we today, assume that any power not forbidden in the US Constitution is given to the Federal government. The 9th has practically been set aside.

The compromise was the 9th amendment which says that people retain other rights beyond the text of the US Constitution, and simply because those rights are not listed, does not mean they can be denied.

More on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[angstlessk]

8. yes, I have said boosh has it exactly backward..if WE are not expressly

Given a right in the constitution we do not have that right (see habeus corpus) HOWEVER if HE is not precisly DENIED a right he automatically assumes he has that right!

COMPLETELY OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE CONSTITUTION STATES!

[water]

10. The federal government can't do ANYTHING the constitution doesn't specifically say. Social Security?

[alfredo]

12. No, the government can't take away rights not spelled out in the BOR.

[water]

13. That's another way of saying it. The right to choose your own retirement...

...is legally left to the states and individuals.

[alfredo]

28. What do you mean by own retirement? You talking about privatizing

social security?

[Wizard777]

24. They really should have called that General Welfare instead of Social Security. n/t

[water]

25. Haha, they well "security" sells, and both the left and the right milk that word for all its worth.

[Wizard777]

26. To me "Social Security" says, your going to the Saturday night dance even if you can't afford it.

The same with the country club. The government is going to ensure your ability to socialize. When in reality. It's a bunch of people that can't live on 168,000.00 telling people they can eat for a month on 100.00.

[northzax]

29. or, of course

you could use the common definition of 'social' at the time, meaning 'collective' or 'group' hence the term 'socialism' from the same root at 'society'.

[insanity]

15. I think it's been answered

But it was to not set a cap on people's basic rights. It actually is quite important in terms of judicial philosophy. Lochner v. New York, which epitomizes anti New Deal judicial rulings, the Court invented the right to make free contract using the 14th and 9th amendments thus eliminating a maximum hour law for bakers.

At least, that's my best understanding.

[TheWraith]

16. Means that just because certain rights are explicitly protected doesn't mean you don't have others.

In other words, just because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention a right to privacy doesn't mean you don't HAVE one. It just means that they addressed the most important issues of the time, but wanted to cover any future omissions by siding with the average person.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. What is means is that we can still have rights that AREN'T set forth

in The Bill of Rights.

Just because something isn't mentioned in The Bill of Rights does not preclude it from being made a right or observed as a right.

[warrior1]

19. You know

that's what I thought it meant. Thanks for all the help.

[cloudythescribbler]

20. Ninth Amendment is based on old (Latin) maxim of jurisprudence ...

There are a number of such sayings (like "he who is silent seems to agree" that are maxims of jurisprudence, often inherited from the Romans, which although not hard and fast laws, are often used to INTERPRET the meaning of laws, and in their APPLICATION.

One such maxim, the one that NECESSITATES the 9th Amendment says:
"expresio unio excludio alterius" (or something like that) meaning "to specify one excludes the others"). This maxim is used, for example, if you have a contract that lists a number of light household chores (sweeping, cleaning the dishes, dusting) and then ends the list with the word "etc". Now, if the hirer then tried to apply the "etc" to demand that the worker carry heavy rocks, mow the lawn or travel, the maxim (to specify one excludes the others) would be applied -- by SPECIFYING ONLY household chores, the "etc" was limited to the category, reasonably narrowly defined, that includes the listed items. This is a simple example -- others are more complex.

In the case of 'rights' sometimes people get the wrong notion that, eg "marriage" is NOT a fundamental right, because it is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is the 9th Amendment that insures (in keeping with common sense) that the Constitution will NOT be read as limiting rights to those specified, but rather listing some rights. Also, some might try to extrapolate limitations on rights from the Constitution, applying the maxim being here discussed or some close variant to its logic. The 9th Amendment had (as its conscious purpose, KNOWN to the authors of the Constitution as an old Latin maxim) the SPECIFIC REJECTION of the application of that maxim to the US Constitution.

I hope this isn't merely confusing.

[warrior1]

21. I suddenly

got stupider...

I think I get it...

[Wizard777]

23. No such thing as a greater right or more of a right.

In a dispute. If I have 10 different amendments supporting my position. I cannot use those to deny you that one right you have supporting your position. People cannot be equal unless their rights are also equal.

[Orangepeel]

27. It means, "just because we listed some rights, doesn't mean that those are the only rights you have"