Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6720)	7/3/2003 6:45:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I look forward to your treatise on the meaning of the 9th amendment! If you can actually articulate clearly and convincingly exactly what rights are and are not in fact protected by the 9th, you will be ahead of virtually every lawyer in the country, and I venture to say of all 9 of the Supremes. As to whether representatives when they vote have the Constitution in mind, we are obligated, I believe, if we want to believe in our form of government, that they take their duties and their oath of office seriously until they prove otherwise. The contrary, it appears, would have to be their committing an act of treason.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6720)	7/3/2003 6:56:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I think the 9th amendment was intended to discourage the government from controlling anything that isn't specifically barred from their control by a constitutional right and if it has any effect along those lines then I am grateful for the amendments existence but it doesn't actual give any specific rights and I don't think it makes legal or logical sense to view the amendment as saying that we have a constitutional right to anything not specifically covered by a power granted to the federal government. For one thing it would lead to supposed rights that where directly contradictory. For another it would leave the states with no power because while the federal government is granted specific powers the states get their powers from the 10th amendment giving all powers not specifically granted to the feds, to "he States respectively, or to the people." Such an interpretation of the 9th amendment would give the federal judiciary unlimited power over all state decisions. I don't think that is a good idea and I don't think it was what the writers of the constitution intended. Tim