Dermezel
Offline
- Quote
- Posted: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:31:03 +0000
The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution says:
This amendment was put in to protect the Bill of Rights against a very serious objection leveled by Federalists against it. To quote James Madison:
And as Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland puts it:
It is always to be remembered that the Founding Fathers usually went through several drafts, each implementation punctuated by debate, so as to convey exact and carefully chosen meaning.
This is important to consider in debates on freedom of conscience with respect to the establishment clause. For example, if one argues that the Constitution meant freedom for religion, not freedom from, as is to often the case with creationists, one has to note that this exact wording meant to promote religion over irreligion (Deism, Agnosticism, and Atheism) was considered and debated, and it was found to be insufficient to convey what the Founder wished to promote- which was freedom of conscience. This was spelled out explicitly in Jame Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, a speech in which Madison made against having a three-pence tax levied to fund missionaries of every sect overseas, a measure argued for by recognized patriot and hero Patrick Henry.
In his criticisms Madison made scathing statements such as:
Madison is explicitly saying that having a government that favors theism over atheism goes against the meaning of the Bill that he wrote.
How does this relate to health care? It is because Madison implied similar things with respect to laws that are basic human rights, among which, is the right to live:
Positive rights, which regulate the actions of a community (taxes) and are determined by the social compact.
This is important, because as Jon Roland explains:
The Ninth Amendment is meant to prevent the government from doing things we would normally consider tyrannical or crazy, or harmful enough to society to begin infringing on social function and our ability to live and act freely.
Surely, if any group qualifies for this position of numerous, organized and well-funded petty tyrants it is the insurance companies.
By putting the general public at the mercy of these petty tyrants, insurance companies, who have a monopoly on a tax-payer subsidized area of the economy, one that represents nearly a sixth of our economy, and has control over life and death I would argue that the US is violating the Ninth Amendment, as that threatens our natural rights and the social compact.
To quote a great protector of the general welfare: "It's illegal."
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment was put in to protect the Bill of Rights against a very serious objection leveled by Federalists against it. To quote James Madison:
Quote:
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.
And as Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland puts it:
Quote:
Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights
by Jon Roland*
The Ninth Amendment was authored originally by James Madison, as part of his commitment to seek amendments to the newly adopted Constitution that would define a “bill of rights”. They began as suggested amendments from each of the state ratifying conventions. Some of those found their way into the somewhat more explicit articles 3 through 10, which, because the first two were not ratified at the time, became the first eight amendments. But it should not be concluded that the suggested amendments that did not get adopted in something like their original form were rejected. Rather, it seems clear, Madison intended to consolidate them in what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Let us examine the final wording adopted:
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
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.
Madison’s original proposed formulation of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is:
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.1
What did Madison mean by “other rights”, which are sometimes called, and disparaged, as the “unenumerated rights”? Disparaged by some, because it is not obvious from the text of the Constitution what those rights might be, or where they could be found, if not in the text.2 This article will seek to discover what those rights are, and argue that there are indeed clues in the text of the unamended Constitution, and in the other amendments, proposed and adopted, in state constitutions, as well as in the historical evidence leading to the ratification.3
by Jon Roland*
The Ninth Amendment was authored originally by James Madison, as part of his commitment to seek amendments to the newly adopted Constitution that would define a “bill of rights”. They began as suggested amendments from each of the state ratifying conventions. Some of those found their way into the somewhat more explicit articles 3 through 10, which, because the first two were not ratified at the time, became the first eight amendments. But it should not be concluded that the suggested amendments that did not get adopted in something like their original form were rejected. Rather, it seems clear, Madison intended to consolidate them in what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Let us examine the final wording adopted:
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article the twelfth [Amendment X]
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.
Madison’s original proposed formulation of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is:
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.1
What did Madison mean by “other rights”, which are sometimes called, and disparaged, as the “unenumerated rights”? Disparaged by some, because it is not obvious from the text of the Constitution what those rights might be, or where they could be found, if not in the text.2 This article will seek to discover what those rights are, and argue that there are indeed clues in the text of the unamended Constitution, and in the other amendments, proposed and adopted, in state constitutions, as well as in the historical evidence leading to the ratification.3
It is always to be remembered that the Founding Fathers usually went through several drafts, each implementation punctuated by debate, so as to convey exact and carefully chosen meaning.
This is important to consider in debates on freedom of conscience with respect to the establishment clause. For example, if one argues that the Constitution meant freedom for religion, not freedom from, as is to often the case with creationists, one has to note that this exact wording meant to promote religion over irreligion (Deism, Agnosticism, and Atheism) was considered and debated, and it was found to be insufficient to convey what the Founder wished to promote- which was freedom of conscience. This was spelled out explicitly in Jame Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, a speech in which Madison made against having a three-pence tax levied to fund missionaries of every sect overseas, a measure argued for by recognized patriot and hero Patrick Henry.
In his criticisms Madison made scathing statements such as:
Quote:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
Quote:
It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.
Quote:
Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
Madison is explicitly saying that having a government that favors theism over atheism goes against the meaning of the Bill that he wrote.
How does this relate to health care? It is because Madison implied similar things with respect to laws that are basic human rights, among which, is the right to live:
Quote:
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.
Positive rights, which regulate the actions of a community (taxes) and are determined by the social compact.
This is important, because as Jon Roland explains:
Quote:
When officials of all three branches try to evade their duty to enforce the Constitution, by trying to push the duty off onto other branches, the enduring result is less likely to be activation of effective public demand for protection of their rights than expansion of the powers of petty tyrants too numerous, well organized, and well-funded to be readily overcome by diffuse public pressure.
The Ninth Amendment is meant to prevent the government from doing things we would normally consider tyrannical or crazy, or harmful enough to society to begin infringing on social function and our ability to live and act freely.
Surely, if any group qualifies for this position of numerous, organized and well-funded petty tyrants it is the insurance companies.
By putting the general public at the mercy of these petty tyrants, insurance companies, who have a monopoly on a tax-payer subsidized area of the economy, one that represents nearly a sixth of our economy, and has control over life and death I would argue that the US is violating the Ninth Amendment, as that threatens our natural rights and the social compact.
To quote a great protector of the general welfare: "It's illegal."
