Can anyone help explain the 9th amendment to me. I know what it says but I don't quite grasp what it means. Thanks
The 9th amendment
- Thread starter jessicak
- Start date
Legendary
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2002
- 7,019
- 1
- 0
What the 9th amendment states is that the federal government can't take away a right granted by a state simply because it doesn't appear in the constitution. It isconcerned with the protection of certain inherent rights of the people that may exist in addition to those rights specifically defined in the Constitution. This concern reflects the belief in inalienable human natural rights. The 9th Amendment was thus a precautionary measure to protect possible but unspecified rights which might be challenged in future controversy. These rights have not been defined, and the 9th Amendment has not been used to any great extent.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
yeah, that's the site I copied that from. I still don't really understand what it is for though. Is it basically saying that there are certain rights not mentioned in the constitution but they are still preserved because they are natural rights?
NutBucket
Lifer
- Aug 30, 2000
- 27,151
- 635
- 126
"Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those."
Taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
Taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
I think it says that just because we listed some of the rights people have, that doesn't mean they don't have other rights we didn't list.
Are there any Supreme Court cases that anyone knows of within the last 15 years or so in which the 9th amendment was challenged?
InverseOfNeo
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2000
- 3,719
- 0
- 0
NutBucket
Lifer
- Aug 30, 2000
- 27,151
- 635
- 126
Its more like the Founding Fathers are saying they can't possibly list all the rights that are protected so they put in this amendment saying that even if rights are explicitly protected they are implicitly protected via the 9th amendment until the Supreme Court decides otherwise. So protected until stated otherwise I guess is a good way of putting it.
Well, you can't challenge amendments, but you can challenge laws by stating how they are contrary to an amendment. And AFAIK, there hasn't been anything recently based on the 9th amendment. The biggie recently seems to be the 14th (equal protection)...
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,698
- 146
The 9th was an act of appeasement to get the Bill of Rights passed. Those opposed felt the government had NO ability to take away basic individual liberties because they were not given that power in the Constitution (and they weren't). However, more forward looking folks knew that without certain basic rights listed, they could and would be in danger.
Well besides that 
I meant like a legal challenge in the courts...you can't say part of the constitution is unconstitutional
I meant like a legal challenge in the courts...you can't say part of the constitution is unconstitutional
I don't think the 9th amendment is used as a basis for deciding very many cases, because it's kind of weak compared to the other basis that can usually be found. I think the 9th was refered to along with other factors in finding a right to privacy which isn't explicit in the Constitiution.
From what I remember, it was also meant to reinforce the sovereignty of state governments. Some states were concerned that the federal government was going to control them against their interests. So the 9th amendment emphasizes that even though the Constitution trumps any state law, the Constitution only grants the federal government limited powers. The states have broader powers, over anything that isn't covered in the Constitution.
That can't be right, the Constitution explicitly states it is above any State law. The 9th Amendment is about people's rights, not state's rights.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,387
- 19,698
- 146
Um, no. That was the Tenth Amendment. The only Amendment that was not expressily about individual rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [thereof.]"
The Consitution did NOT trump state law until after the Civil War and the 14th Amendment was passed:
Section one:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
My mistake. I was reading the wrong amendment
However, regarding pre-emption: I believe the Constitution had always pre-empted state law from the beginning, before the 14th amendment, through the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. I could be wrong though.
However, regarding pre-emption: I believe the Constitution had always pre-empted state law from the beginning, before the 14th amendment, through the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. I could be wrong though.
Basically with the 10th amendment, the 9th was to help guarantee that we would not have a large government that took over from the states. Unfrotunately, this has changed over the last 200+ years and the courts have not upheld the law strictly in keeping with the original intent.
timlocke-
That is a popular opinion with some conservatives, but it isn't right. The Constitution was designed to create a strong central government because the earlier attempts which tried to avoid doing so failed miserably.
It's all a sham anyway, how could Justices like Thomas and Scalia who espouse this philosphy have decided the Gore vs Bush election case the way they did, if they strictly went by the founders intent ? That case was completely made up out of thin air, it's not based on any principal but political expediency.
That is a popular opinion with some conservatives, but it isn't right. The Constitution was designed to create a strong central government because the earlier attempts which tried to avoid doing so failed miserably.
It's all a sham anyway, how could Justices like Thomas and Scalia who espouse this philosphy have decided the Gore vs Bush election case the way they did, if they strictly went by the founders intent ? That case was completely made up out of thin air, it's not based on any principal but political expediency.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter