What does the 9th Amendment mean?

[Јas]

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.

[The Mikado]

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. 

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.

[Verily]

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. 

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).

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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.

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."

[WillK]

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?