Talk Elections

Dreaded by "conservatives", of course.


Interesting analysis here.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

LOL. JFraud is back to not reading his links again.

Tha amendment is linked to the Necessary and Proper Clause. As stated, the Federalists argued a bill of rights would be dangerous, because by listing various exceptions to powers not granted, you would imply the government had those powers. In other words, you would make the powers seem far more expansive than they actually were.

The Ninth Amendment was simply a response to that. It was not a license to judges to make up new rights. It does not add any right; it merely prevents the bill of rights from being taken to distort federal power.

It doesn't add any rights, but it acknowedges that there are others not enumerated in the constitution.

It means that just because a right isn't listed, doesn't mean to federal government can infringe upon it: in other words, it is still bound by the limited nature of its enumerated powers.

Jfern how do you conclude that conservatives dread the 9th amendment?

Because liberals take something, anything, call it a "right" and insist that it is protected under the 9th.

They hate Griswold and Roe.

Yes, as it is.

In order to understand the Ninth Amendment, one must first determine what a "right" is. As far as the Constitution is concerned, a right is nothing more than an exception to the government's powers.

Thus, when introducing the Bill of Rights on the floor of the House of Representatives, James Madison said, "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration" (emphasis added). Madison's statement shows quite clearly that, as far as the Bill of Rights was concerned, "rights" and "exceptions to the grant of power" were synonymous.

Many feared that, if only a few exceptions to the grant of power were enumerated, then the federal government might expand its powers in areas not specifically excepted. For example, someone might have claimed, "The federal government may regulate intrastate commerce, because nothing in the Constitution specifically prohibits it from doing so." It is precisely this line of reasoning that the Ninth Amendment precludes.

It is apparent from history and from the text itself that the Ninth Amendment does nothing more than limit the federal government to its enumerated powers. As Jfern's own link suggests, "the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement."

---

On its own, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, as John Marshall made clear in Barron v. Baltimore. It extends to the states only by virtue of the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yet, by their very nature, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments cannot apply to the states, even by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both of these amendments were meant to chain the federal government to its enumerated powers; naturally, such a consideration does not arise with regard to the states.

The original interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is in accord with the view that the term "privileges or immunities" only encompassed the first eight amendments to the Constitution. For example, the House sponsor of the amendment (John Bingham) argued in a debate in 1871:

"[T]he privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are defined in the [first] eight articles of amendment, ... were not limitations on the power of the States before the fourteenth amendment made them limitations."

Other speeches from the same time period show a similar understanding of the privileges or immunities clause.

---

Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Ninth Amendment authorizes judges to strike down laws that they dislike. For every liberal activist who claims that there is a constitutional right to privacy, there is a conservative activist who claims that there is a constitutional liberty of contract. For every Griswold v. Connecticut, there is a Lochner v. New York.

Finally, Emsworth is blue.

About time. His opinions of justices make it clear that he is no Democrat. I believe he valued the 5 who stole the 2000 election higher than the 4 who believe in counting every vote.

Actually, seven justices believed that Florida should count every vote.  It was the two liberals who thought that it was OK for Florida to only perform recounts in Democratic counties.

As do I.  Does that make me not a Democrat?

Yes. No Democrat supports stealing the election for a Republican who happens to be the worst President ever.

In case it does, we're leaving the door open on this side of the aisle. :)

John,

I have very little doubt, that one day, Alcon will make a nice moderately conservative Republican. He's WAY too logical to remain on that side of the aisle past the age of about 22.

Many many logicians are Democrats, genius.

Only the sh**tty ones, I'm sure.

Hahaha. You are just a stupid partisan hack. Let's see where the best 2 graduate programs in logic are.
1.   University of California–Berkeley
2.   University of Wisconsin–Madison

Ooops, Berkeley, CA and Madison, WI. Not exactly a lot of Republicans there. You lose.


http://math.bilgi.edu.tr/pipermail/math/2002-February/000092.html

I was obviously being sarcastic, but okay, I'll address your point as if it were a serious one.  Then we should probably get back to the issue at hand.

As any good logician would tell you, the voter registration in the city where the University is happens to be heavily Democratic does not mean that the logicians who work in the graduate program are also Democratic.

pwned

Berkeley voted 90% Kerry, 6.5% Bush. Are you going to tell me that there are more Republicans than Democrats in the #1 logic program in the country?

You're the one who claimed that all of the good logicians aren't Democrats. Busted.

Again, the voting patterns of the city do not determine the voting patterns of the logicians.  The voting patterns of the logicians may well be heavily Democrat, and I'd expect the faculty at UC Berkeley is.  Its not your hypothesis I'm disputing, I think your hypothesis is perfectly valid.  Its the question of whether you have proven you hypothesis to the point of being a fact that I think you've failed to do.

Obviously most logicians are in academia, and most of academia is leftist, so I was obviously (as I've said twice now) being sarcastic in my remarks.  But is interesting that when I say something so blatantly hyperbolic, you're still unable to win the debate on the merits.

My god, you're actually trying to argue that logicians at Berkeley aren't Democrats.
Anyways, I've heard 2 Professors in the logic program make anti-Bush comments to 0 who made any other political comments, so you are really just being a stupid partisan hack here.

In addition I found a 3rd Professor, John Steel, who gave $250 to the DNC.

You are the one who made the outrageous claim that no good logicians are Democrats. Your partisan hack ass has been owned. STFU.

My agreeing with them more often than the "liberal" justices does not necessarily indicate I agree with Bush v. Gore.

So do you agree with Bush vs. Gore?

I'm not trying to prove that most logicians at UC Berkeley are Republicans.  I've said in this thread:



So no, I didn't say what you said I said.  And no, I haven't been owned.  You on the other hand are unable to prove something that is pretty obvious, its like being unable to prove the sky is blue.  It speaks poorly of your, well, logic.

I already showed that a few of the logicians at Berkeley are Democrats, with no evidence of any Republicans. They are professors in the #1 logic program in the country.
Give it up, idiot. Why can't you lying Republicans ever admit defeat?
You said:


You made an outrageous partisan hack claim. You lose. Now STFU.

Ferny, this is one of your craziest performances.  When they said you couldn't take it to a higher level, you proved them wrong.  Good show, old chap, good show.

You claimed that only the sh**tty logicians are Democrats. Do you still claim that's true? If yes, you are arguing a clearly wrong position. If not, then why the hell did you say that in the first place. Do you not care about the facts? You clearly have no logical abilities to speak of here.

I think this is the fifth time I've said this:  I do not believe that and never did, I said it as a sarcastic offhand comment.  Duh.

That's obviously why you kept defending your posiiton. Duh.

No, I didn't really defend my position, I was essentially playing Devil's advocate to mess with you.  It worked.

How am I supposed to know when you Republicans are arguing unreasonable position for the heck of it, as opposed to an unreasonable position seriously. What about your view that the California Senate would be best off with 1 Senator for each county, even if it has just a few thousand people, or Los Angeles' 11 million people. Is that a joke? What about your claim that California will soon be pro-life? Is that a joke? What about your claim that Arnold supported making it harder for himself to fundraise large money from corporations? Is that a joke? You make so many outrageous statements, I can't tell which ones are jokes, and which ones aren't. Perhaps you wait until it's clear that you're losing to decide that it was a joke position.

Well, you can verify the Arnold thing I'm sure.  I saw him say it in the town hall with Sen. Perata.

And perhaps actually reading my posts would give you an indication of when I'm being serious or not.

I did, and it's really not clear, since you say so much absurd stuff. If I ignored the absurd stuff, there wouldn't be much left.