Unenumerated Rights

[A18]

Yes, but the ninth amendment does not add any right. It is merely a rule of construction.

Hamilton said, why have a right to free speech when there's nothing in the Constitution allowing Congress to deny it to you? You already had that right. He argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous, as it could serve as justification for Congress assuming a general regulatory power.

In introducing the bill of rights, Madison made his intention clear:

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; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

[A18]

Yes, but the ninth amendment does not add any right. It is merely a rule of construction.

Finally something we agree on with regard to the Constitution

[A18]

Yes, but all that means is that the Congress can't deny you any right unless the Constitution explictly allows it.

The amendment is just a safe guard, stating that the Bill of Rights may not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the federal government in areas not enumerated.

[A18]

Was that the whole point?

Consider an argument along the following lines: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to an abortion. Therefore, you do not have the right to an abortion." The point of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that such arguments would not be treated as valid.

Not at all. The argument would be: "The Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention the right to murder people. Therefore, you do not have the right to murder people." But since Congress has no power to prohibit murder, you do have the right to murder within the 50 states (only with regard to the federal government).

[A18]

The point to the ninth amendment is to keep the government chained to the enumerated powers. For example, there already was a right to free speech in each state prior to the first amendment, due to the enumerated powers; the first amendment simply made an explicit note of it.

All that really changed is that the Congress could no longer infringe upon free speech in the territories.

[A18]

There is no constitutional right to privacy, so it's irrelevant.

[A18]

See, I simply interpret that post differently:

I am an idiot

[A18]

There is no constitutional right to privacy, so it's irrelevant.

I would say that there is indeed a right to privacy. Such a deduction is supported, in my view, by the penumbra (sorry that I have to resort to this word) of the Fourth Amendment.

Hah, 'penumbra.' That's a neat way of admitting it's not actually part of the fourth amendment.

[A18]

Of course, but you can violate a valid federal law in private. The things you care about - abortion, drugs, and prostitution - can not be regulated by Congress, except in DC and other federal territories, in which Congress is permuted to act as a full legislature.

[A18]

The states are not bound to the enumerated powers of Congress. There is no generic right to privacy applicable against every form of government.

[A18]

No, you're wrong. The unenumerated rights are all those areas over which Congress has no jurisdiction.