The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Of all of the Bill of Rights, these twenty-one words are probably the most important to an understanding of the intent of the founding fathers in writing the Constitution. Go ahead and read it again. It is not written in the love language of lawyers or is some foreign tongue.
Many of the delegates to the Constitution felt that the document did not use strong enough words to ensure the rights of the people. So they added amendments outlining those rights.
Two notable people had an objection to these amendments. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Their impression was that the rights enumerated were expressed clearly in other documentation and inherent in the American culture. No one would be foolish enough to actually try to take those rights away because the People would not stand for it and revolt again.
The other argument was that if you enumerated certain rights, the government would simply trample on the other known natural rights that people had. Future governments might, I don’t know, use something like the “Interstate Commerce Clause” to trample on the enumerated rights. There had to be some way that they could ensure the “safety” of the People.
This was it.
If they only added this Amendment, it would have been understood that all of the other Bill of Rights existed. It says that just because the Constitution enumerated certain rights to the people, that is not all the natural rights that they possess.
Could any of those rights ever be taken away? In the Government Class Book, Andrew Yong explains. In Chapter VI.—entitled Qualifications of Electors; or, by whom Political Power is exercised in the States of this Union—Sec. 7 he writes:
It is provided also in state constitutions, that electors committing infamous crimes are disfranchised. Franchise is a right or privilege enjoyed by the citizens of a state. Hence the right of voting at elections is called the elective franchise; and an elector, when deprived of this privilege, is disfranchised. An infamous crime is one which is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison. Men guilty of high crimes are deemed unfit to be intrusted with so important a duty as that of electing the persons who are to make and execute the laws of the state. It is provided, however, that if such persons are pardoned before the expiration of the term for which they were sentenced to be imprisoned, their forfeited rights are restored.
Thus, in ONLY ONE specific area could your rights be violated and that is the voting for elected offices, unless you were pardoned before serving your full time.
The government, today, has extended this to taking away all of your rights including the right to bear arms. This has lead to resentment which turns into more violence and black marketing of banned materials for those persons. After all, as a Christian nation, once the person has “served his debt to society,” are we not supposed to be forgiving? Many of these people might have actually learned a lesson and might want to commit to being a “good” citizen. Until they get stepped on after their release and cannot find a meaningful job or protect their family from harm. Is it any wonder that we have a revolving door prison system?
I might point out, as well, that if people can’t vote, there is a very valid question as to whether they can be forced to pay taxes of any sort. Remember James Otis wrote about taxation without representation?
There is a very specific reason that this amendment is glossed over, at best, in public school—if taught at all. Let’s look at it in other terms.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to smoke marijuana retained by the people. That is correct. Drug laws are illegal.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to drive a car retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the right to choose a health care plan that I want or have none at all retained by the people.
You can fill in your own blank.
Are there limitations? Yes. Your rights end where mine begin, and vice-versa. The rights boil down to personal responsibility, which is not taught in public schools anymore. Now they are taught that the government issues your rights and responsibilities.
For example, you do not have the right to drive while impaired in any way with the chance of killing myself and my family. Thus, driving while drunk. Driving after you have taken legal medication which might impair you, or forgetting to take medication which prevents you from being impaired. Driving a vehicle with questionable brakes or tires that you know are worn to the point that they might burst at any moment.
You cannot dump oil and trash in a creek that runs from your property through mine. You cannot dump oil and antifreeze on the ground which might seep in and poison the water supply.
Can you drive an old V-8 that pollutes the air? Perhaps in cities, such as Phoenix which naturally traps pollutants within the confines of the city that might be a consideration. In the open rural areas, however, the pollutants dissipate in the atmosphere and no one has proven that it causes the earth to warm up. Oh, I’m sorry. The thing today is change the climate. Can you tax people to limit their use of autos? I take the Ninth. No. That infringes on their rights and only hurts the poor, anyway.
The point is that the Ninth Amendment tells us that the founding fathers knew that specific, and potentially hazardous, powers were being given to the State and Federal governments. This was meant as a way of saying, we know that and you governments have personal responsibilities. This Constitution is granted as providing a government to protect the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity. Not to suppress them in any way.
The question, of course, keeps cropping up. Since the government has ignored many of their “personal responsibilities”—i.e. the coining of money, protecting the borders, guaranteeing a “Republican form of government”—does that not revert to the People under the Ninth and the States under the Tenth?
Possibly related articles:
Tags: 9th Amendment, Arizona, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Education, Honor America Days, Ninth Amendment
Loading ...
