United States Constitution

[holland]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/

annotated

http://www.mp3books.com/shop/audio_item.aspx?id=818

audio

[JayHawk]

Your point?

[Zeremonie]

I'm not entirely sure what this thread is supposed to be about but there's another resource here:

http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

[holland]

well have you ever read it?

[centexfarmer]

well have you ever read it?

More imporatantly has anyone in Washington read it?

[JayHawk]

I have been in the US Navy for the last 16 years. I have not only read the enitre document but can recite the preamble. Does it hold that high a place in your heart and mind?

[Eagle653]

well have you ever read it?

Yes. Been tested on it too.

Again, as others are asking: Your point?

[unclaimedblessing]

It's all rather pointless.
Our president took a solemn oath to defend and protect our constitution twice.
He has since referred to it as a piece of paper.
Rather cheapens the whole concept, doesn't it?

[centexfarmer]

My favorite joke that was going around when the Iraq's were putting together their own Constitution is, "Let's give them ours, we're not using it!"

[hty2]

This is usually the point where Senator Robert Byrd (D - W. Virginia and thought by some to be the last protector of the U.S. Constitution in the United States Senate) rises and asks to be recognized by the President of the Senate ........

[beekman001]

Monkey Bread for anyone who can tell me what Amendment #9 says without looking it up.

[lapafrax]

I've read it and I'm not even American!!

And it truly IS a goddamned piece of paper. I doubt Bush gives two shits about it!

[cityboy-stl]

Monkey Bread for anyone who can tell me what Amendment #9 says without looking it up.

The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The enumeration, the numbering of listing of rights, shall not be interpreted to take away or diminish other rights retained or listed in the constitution eg. owned by the people. All parts of the constitution stand equally. No part can be used to invalidate or modify another part.

The wording is a little 18th century but it's not that hard.

[pjlikesporn]

The enumeration, the numbering of listing of rights, shall not be interpreted to take away or diminish other rights retained or listed in the constitution eg. owned by the people. All parts of the constitution stand equally. No part can be used to invalidate or modify another part.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying--especially with the part I have underlined. But I think you might be misreading it. The amendment concerns not a conflict with other rights written in the Constitution, but with natural rights that were never enumerated in the first place.

Many of the framers were opponents of the Bill of Rights--the first ten Amendments, most of which deal with individual liberties. While these opponents were strong supporters of civil liberties, they were worried that if they had to come up with a list of constitutional rights, such a listing would imply that those rights that were not listed did not exist. After all, the Constitution provided limited power to the national government, so these framers saw no need to provide for individual rights, since they thought that the enumerated powers of the national governemtn provided no basis for the usurpation of individual liberties in the first place.

Of course, the powers enumerated in the Constituion can be read broadly, and individual liberties can indeed be trod upon within the purview of enumerated powers. Thus, the Bill of Rights is indeed a welcome addition for civil libertarians. However, the Ninth Amendment remains a strong argument for individual liberties not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. For example, where Republicans cry "judicial activism" over the use of the Constitution to support abortion rights and the right to (homo)sexual intimacy, the Ninth Amendment provides strong support for the Eighteenth Century Enlightenment ideal that people control their own fate.

[Toriko]

And it truly IS a goddamned piece of paper. I doubt Bush gives two shits about it!

It sounds like you don't care much about it either; is this due to a lack of citizenship (ambivalence) or an actual dislike for it?

[Kulindahr]

I'm not quite sure I follow what you're saying--especially with the part I have underlined. But I think you might be misreading it. The amendment concerns not a conflict with other rights written in the Constitution, but with natural rights that were never enumerated in the first place.

Of course, the powers enumerated in the Constituion can be read broadly, and individual liberties can indeed be trod upon within the purview of enumerated powers. Thus, the Bill of Rights is indeed a welcome addition for civil libertarians. However, the Ninth Amendment remains a strong argument for individual liberties not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. For example, where Republicans cry "judicial activism" over the use of the Constitution to support abortion rights and the right to (homo)sexual intimacy, the Ninth Amendment provides strong support for the Eighteenth Century Enlightenment ideal that people control their own fate.

As my "Bitch Attorney" (first lkasy attorney in the city, and copped an attitude so she wouldn't be ignored, got that nickname and became proud of it) instructor for a one-term course on the Constitution and law for everyday life put it, the ninth amendment means "if it isn't listed, it's a right". Thus:
Right to Privacy
Right to Travel
Right to (Freedom of) Expression
etc.
I like...
Right to Entertain Myself by Consuming Interesting Substances.

Oops -- there went that War on Drug(user)s thing.....

[Goula]

While these opponents were strong supporters of civil liberties, they were worried that if they had to come up with a list of constitutional rights, such a listing would imply that those rights that were not listed did not exist.

I've trimmed you post down to this one point.

It's -- I don't know -- interesting? sad? peculiar? -- that precisely that would become enshrined as a cornerstone of what passes for conservative thought.

And there's nothing implied about it. One can find it explicitly stated in court decision after court decision that, if it ain't written in the Constitution, it ain't there.

How -- interesting? sad? peculiar? again, that an instrument whose intent was to limit government has been turned upon its head to be used as an instrument to limit the people.

[Kulindahr]

That brings to mind a constitutional amendment I'd like to see, one the FFs likely would have found puzzling, since to them it would have been obvious:

In all disputes concerning law, whether between private individuals or groups, or between groups and government, that interpretation which grants greater or greatest liberty to the people, or any member of the people, shall be construed to be correct.

[iman]

In all disputes concerning law, whether between private individuals or groups, or between groups and government, that interpretation which grants greater or greatest liberty to the people, or any member of the people, shall be construed to be correct.

"The people" or "any member of the people" would necessarily refer to the majority. That, of course, would mean that individuals and minorities would have no rights.

[beekman001]

"The people" or "any member of the people" would necessarily refer to the majority. That, of course, would mean that individuals and minorities would have no rights.

I'm unclear as to how you draw that conclusion given the wording proposed. I'm wondering if you fully understand the wording and what it means.

[Kulindahr]

"The people" or "any member of the people" would necessarily refer to the majority. That, of course, would mean that individuals and minorities would have no rights.

Now I see why your posts show such ignorance -- you have no clue what the Constitution says, besides not having a clue what freedom is.

Please do these:

1. Read the Constitution, with special attention to the Bill of Rights
2. Read the Federalist Papers and their opposite
3. Check out a good commentary, preferably from the nineteenth century, on the meaning of the Bill of Rights, and study it thoroughly.
4. Read a book or two about freedom, not neglecting John Locke, Thomas Paine, or John Stuart Mill... on second thought, read five books.

Get back to us when you manage to figure out what the term "the people" actually means in the Constitution. If the above doesn't do it for you, I'll refer you to some Supreme Court cases in which the term is actually defined.

[Kulindahr]

I'm unclear as to how you draw that conclusion given the wording proposed. I'm wondering if you fully understand the wording and what it means.

Plainly he doesn't recognize wording lifted from the Constitution, with an amendation aimed at the tendency of liberals to turn individuals into government-authorized groups.

It will be interesting to see if he goes for the education I suggested; obviously our government-dictated dominated directed school system hasn't given him one.

Like the man in the Narnia movie said, "What do they teach in schools these days?"

[JackFTwist]

I have been in the US Navy for the last 16 years. I have not only read the enitre document but can recite the preamble. Does it hold that high a place in your heart and mind?

Go Navy! (although I am the father of a Marine.)

The Constitution does hold the highest place in my esteem.