Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2014, 09:52:34 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Torie, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  What does the 9th Amendment mean?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: What does the 9th Amendment mean?  (Read 3869 times)
Јas
Jas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9791
Malawi


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2010, 05:43:54 am »
Ignore

We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot. 

Or, you know, like the United Kingdom, which is the same way.

     Not a system I would rather like to emulate, given the tendency of politicians through the ages towards incredible abuses of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United Kingdom hasn't had an autocratic regime since roughly one hundred years before our Constitution was written.

And, of course, there have been no notable abuses of power in the US since the adoption of the Constitution.
Logged

Funny 'cause it's true:
Very few people seriously allow facts to affect their opinions.

The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14387


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2010, 02:36:54 pm »
Ignore

We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot. 

Or, you know, like the United Kingdom, which is the same way.

     Not a system I would rather like to emulate, given the tendency of politicians through the ages towards incredible abuses of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United Kingdom hasn't had an autocratic regime since roughly one hundred years before our Constitution was written.

William Pitt the Younger disagrees.  Tongue

Seriously, though, the guy suspended Habeas Corpus, public political meetings were banned (except those for the express purpose of petitioning Parliament, and even those were limited), dispersed armed forces throughout the countryside, and other lovely measures.  He might have just been Prime Minister, but he had some pretty autocratic power.
Logged

Einzige is a poltroon who cowardly turns down duel challenges he should be honor-bound to accept. The Code Duello authorizes you to mock and belittle such a pathetic honorless scoundrel.
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16808


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: September 08, 2010, 10:13:33 pm »
Ignore

We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot. 

Or, you know, like the United Kingdom, which is the same way.

     Not a system I would rather like to emulate, given the tendency of politicians through the ages towards incredible abuses of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United Kingdom hasn't had an autocratic regime since roughly one hundred years before our Constitution was written.

William Pitt the Younger disagrees.  Tongue

Seriously, though, the guy suspended Habeas Corpus, public political meetings were banned (except those for the express purpose of petitioning Parliament, and even those were limited), dispersed armed forces throughout the countryside, and other lovely measures.  He might have just been Prime Minister, but he had some pretty autocratic power.

All that happened before Britain was a democracy, anyway. The existence of Parliament alone did not make it so. Britain certainly has had no major abuses since 1832 (a rather arbitrary designation for the beginning of democracy in Britain, but it was a process).
Logged
RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: September 08, 2010, 10:24:30 pm »
Ignore

There's a clear inferred right to privacy and bodily autonomy inferred from the penumbras of the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.  Read Roe (one of the most bold and creative, and I like boldness and creativity, interpretations of the Constitutions I've ever had the pleasure of reading).  William O. Douglas was the man, unlike so many of these current Justices that think they have to be bound by Framer's intent.

The problem with the ruling is not whether the rights to privacy or bodily autonomy exist. Regardless of whether or not they do, neither right inherently has relation to the issue of abortion unless you make the assumption that a fetus is not also a living person, who would be equally entitled to the right of bodily autonomy should it exist. The question of the personhood of a fetus is the single most important question in regard to abortion, and it seems to be one that is often easily ignored, including in the ruling and the left's support for it.

Huh

The Left doesn't ignore the question of personhood. The Left has clearly answered that question with the position that the fetus is not a person, and some leftists aren't afraid to state that outright. Some support abortion even if they disagree over the personhood issue. I'm sure many people would say "well, OK, the fetus isn't nothing, but it's still not a person, and I'm still for the right to abort it."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2010, 12:51:51 pm by Farewell to Senator-elect Castle (R-DE) »Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
WillK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1291


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2010, 01:31:22 pm »
Ignore

The idea that the Ninth Amendment is a blank check, allowing the government to do whatever it wants, is absurd.

Where is this coming from?  When has anyone said the 9th has anything to do with alllowing the government to do anything at all? 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines