Ron Paul to have full-page ad in USA Today

RStringfield said:
That is not true of Ron Paul at all. Maybe other conservatives. Where has he argued that the federal government has a right to deny the right to privacy or contract?
Click to expand...
He doesn't, he instead says that the federal government should not protect it. The ninth has a lot of shit included in it which is why those on the fringes hate it so. I had one of my conservative friends ask where all this Ninth Amendment shit ends. "With Freedom", is what I told him.
 
Socrtease said:
He doesn't, he instead says that the federal government should not protect it. The ninth has a lot of shit included in it which is why those on the fringes hate it so. I had one of my conservative friends ask where all this Ninth Amendment shit ends. "With Freedom", is what I told him.
Click to expand...

The 9th could not possibly be used to justify the federal government, more accurately the supreme court, creating rights and forcing them on the states. The enumeration of the certain rights did not apply to the states. How on earth could one argue that the 9th means those NOT enumerated apply to the states.

Soc, you are simply wrong here.
 
RStringfield said:
The 9th could not possibly be used to justify the federal government, more accurately the supreme court, creating rights and forcing them on the states. The enumeration of the certain rights did not apply to the states. How on earth could one argue that the 9th means those NOT enumerated apply to the states.

Soc, you are simply wrong here.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th amendment so says the Supreme Court of the United States. Your view is what led to the 4th amendment not applying to criminal defendent's in state court until 1961 when the Court decided Mapp v. Ohio. To say that the rights guarenteed by the Federal Constitution can be violated by states renders the US Constitution meaningless. If would mean absolutely that states could limit free speech, could take ALL your guns from you and NOT compensate you for them, could sieze your property without a warrant, force you to confess to a crime, hold you indefinetly with charges and a whole slew of other things. Rights, as you well know ARE NOT Created they exist without the consent of the government. You would give the states the right to violate rights that the federal government cannot. Besides, your conception of Constitutional rights lost a while ago. Probably to your dissatisfaction. God damn supreme court forced desegregation on us when there is NOTHING in the federal constitution that lets them, unless you believe the US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
 
I agree with The (L)(l)ibertarians insofar as ANY government, within OUR federation of states, only has the power that the people have explicitly given to it. Where I disagree with many Libertarians, especially on this board, is on the issue of Eminent Domain.

Just to quickly cover that, Eminent Domain is inherent to the sovereign. The creation of government creates sovereign power. Since THE PEOPLE hold the power of sovereignty in our system, THE PEOPLE hold the power of Eminent Domain.

What most fail to realize, is that the power of The Sovereign is wielded by our representative government, AND, unless our legislature exercises it's power to restrict, or even abolish (yes, the legislature has the power to abolish Eminent Domain) Eminent Domain, The Sovereign Power has the legal right to wield Eminent Domain to the full extent of it's allowed capacity (our Constitution specifies that all uses of Eminent Domain must be accompanied by just compensation of the property owner). Okay, that's done.

I can applaud libertarian thought, as it focuses on a Constitutional system. A system we have long since abandoned.
 
Even the states have to deal with enumerated powers. Sovereign power ultimately belongs to THE PEOPLE, and unless government, whether it be federal, state, or any manner of local, is explicitly given the power to restrict liberty, said liberty exists.
 
Socrtease said:
The Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th amendment so says the Supreme Court of the United States. Your view is what led to the 4th amendment not applying to criminal defendent's in state court until 1961 when the Court decided Mapp v. Ohio. To say that the rights guarenteed by the Federal Constitution can be violated by states renders the US Constitution meaningless.
Click to expand...


My view is that the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights apply to the states via the 14th amendment. But the 9th does not guarantee any rights, it merely states that the bill of rights does not infer that no other rights exists and the feds are not empowered to violate those non-enumerated via the enumerated powers anyway. Further, how do you handle the conflict you've then created between the tenth and ninth.

Socrtease said:
If would mean absolutely that states could limit free speech, could take ALL your guns from you and NOT compensate you for them, could sieze your property without a warrant, force you to confess to a crime, hold you indefinetly with charges and a whole slew of other things. Rights, as you well know ARE NOT Created they exist without the consent of the government. You would give the states the right to violate rights that the federal government cannot. Besides, your conception of Constitutional rights lost a while ago. Probably to your dissatisfaction. God damn supreme court forced desegregation on us when there is NOTHING in the federal constitution that lets them, unless you believe the US Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Click to expand...


Applying your notion, leaves the supremes with completely unchecked power. If they decide that we have a right to be free from "hurtful" speech, the danger of guns or possess a collective right to property they could take all your rights. I'd much rather take my chances with 50 seperate and elected state legislatures than 9 unelected people.

However, we do not fully need to do that. The state may not violate your guaranteed rights under the 14th, under my reading.


This gives both sides but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Even the states have to deal with enumerated powers. Sovereign power ultimately belongs to THE PEOPLE, and unless government, whether it be federal, state, or any manner of local, is explicitly given the power to restrict liberty, said liberty exists.
Click to expand...

Sure. But limiting the government to enumerated powers has been pretty much abandoned.
 
RStringfield said:
The 9th could not possibly be used to justify the federal government, more accurately the supreme court, creating rights and forcing them on the states. The enumeration of the certain rights did not apply to the states. How on earth could one argue that the 9th means those NOT enumerated apply to the states.

Soc, you are simply wrong here.
Click to expand...
It is the 10th that points out that rights not enumerated go either to the state or to the individual.

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.
Click to expand...

That is the whole of it, it is pretty clear.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Damo, The 9th is what RS was speaking of.
 
Beefy said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Damo, The 9th is what RS was speaking of.
Click to expand...
The 9th does not overwhelm the 10th, or vice versa. Speaking of the 9th and not recognizing the 10th at the same time is problematical at best.
 
Powers and rights are clearly different things in the language of our founders. A power is authority granted to the government entities to act. A right is a guarantee of protection from action.

The 9th states that the rights listed are not exhaustive and are not meant to be understood as the feds may act as it pleases so long as it does not violate these rights. The 10th states that powers listed to the federal government are exhaustive and further cements the idea that feds are limited in authority.

As I stated, soc's reading of the 9th coupled with the 14th grants unlimited power to the supremes and therefore contradicts the 10th.

The 9th does not imply that the supremes may divine fundamental rights and then prohibit powers of states or the people.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
Powers and rights are clearly different things in the language of our founders. A power is authority granted to the government entities to act. A right is a guarantee of protection from action.

The 9th states that the rights listed are not exhaustive and are not meant to be understood as the feds may act as it pleases so long as it does violate these rights. The 10th states that powers listed to the federal government are exhaustive and further cements the idea that feds are limited in authority.

As I stated, soc's reading of the 9th coupled with the 14th grants unlimited power to the supremes and therefore contradicts the 10th.

The 9th does not imply that the supremes may divine fundamental rights and then prohibit powers of states or the people.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This was what I was talking about.
 
Conservatives don't like the 9th amendment because it allows people to have freedoms like right to privacy and contract to include marriage. If the truth be told and they had the balls they would admit that they abhor cases like Loving v. Virgina which said that states could not longer forbid inter-racial marriages, or Griswold v. Connecticut which said married couples had the right to family planning including the birth control pill. Conservatives are every bit as much intruders into the lives of ordinary citizens as lefties who want think the government knows better what to do with our money than we do. Conservatives have lamented the loss of "states rights" since the end of slavery. Historically in this country states have been far greater violators of freedom than the federal government has EVER dreamed of being. States have attempted to force prayer on the unwilling, and the pledge of alliegence on those whose religious belief forbids praying to flags. The states have attempted to keep white people from marrying non-white people and to remove books from library shelves. The states have sought to force women not only to keep the child they have already conceived but also to keep from not conceiving. They have passed laws to forcibly sterilize people who have stolen a chicken, prosecute schools for teaching languages other than english. The States at every turn in this country have sought to quash the civil liberties and civil rights of racial and relgious and free thinking minorities. If not for the Supreme Court schools would have remained segregated for decades after 1954. I would challenge ANYONE to find as many cases dealing with the speech and religious belief and racial classifications against the federal government as you can involving the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top