Ninth Amendment- Enumeration Clause

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

In my opinion,the ninth amendment says that the rights of the people are not limited to just those stated in the Constitution. The Framers knew that they could not possibly cover every right that citizens should posses so they added the ninth amendment to expand our rights. Not only do we have the ones listed but unspoken ones as well. I believe this to be a very important amendment. It provides the foundation for new cases to be decided.





My Opinion: I chose this video because I think it highlights the fact that privacy is something we all value. US citizens are very adamant about protecting it. Even though this is the case, it is not specifically written into the Constitution. Could it be time for a new amendment? I think so.



"Privacy and the Ninth Amendment"
by Paul Varnell

First published September 14, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund recently developed a list of some 30 questions it hoped would be asked of Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., and, presumably, the as yet unnamed associate justice nominee.

Among them were: Is there a Constitutional right to privacy? Can the government make it a crime for gay people to have sex? and Do gay people have a right to equal protection under the law?

Roberts will probably not discuss his views on most substantive issues since he would lose votes no matter how he answers. But those are good questions that point to the still-developing area of people's rights against government interference. Lambda unfortunately neglects to educate the gay public about the basis for these rights, so a radical rethinking may be invited.

The right to privacy is an umbrella term for a bundle of different rights and immunities such as the right to be secure from intrusion in a person's body, in his (or her) home, and in his most intimate relationships. The core concept is the right to personal autonomy, the right to be left alone. As the old adage had it: A man's home is his castle. The winds may blow through it, the rain may pour through the roof, but the King of England may not enter.

“Privacy” is not mentioned in the Constitution, but elements have been found in several specific guarantees in the first ten amendments, most convincingly in the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of security “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” in the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of private property rights and its prohibition of taking “life, liberty, or property,” without due process.

Are there other “unenumerated” rights against government interference that individuals retain? There are. How do we know that? The Constitution says so. Where does it say that? In the Ninth Amendment. What does it say? It states in its entirety, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Having set up an “energetic” federal government with the Constitution, the Framers felt a need to reassure people that their new government could not become tyrannical and that they retained all the traditional rights of Englishmen plus additional rights to prevent potential abuses. Although they listed several, they realized that no list could be complete. Hence the Ninth Amendment.

"“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”"Some advocates of government control over people's social and economic lives have tried to evade the Ninth Amendment, saying it just repeats the Tenth Amendment. But that is flagrantly dishonest. The Ninth Amendment refers to “rights”—i.e., immunities against government—retained by “the people”—i.e., individual persons. By contrast the Tenth refers to “powers”—i.e., governing authorities—reserved for “the states.”

In recent years as courts began trying to expand certain privacy or personal autonomy rights, particularly in the social and sexual sphere, they cautiously began to mention the Ninth Amendment, which one author called “The forgotten Ninth Amendment” and Justice Goldberg in his 1965 Griswold (birth control) concurrence said “may be regarded by some as a rediscovery.”

Although the Ninth Amendment must have some substantive content, judges have been terrified to base decisions on it alone. Currently, it seems to be viewed at most as a kind of nagging reminder to judges to hunt for specific privacy and autonomy rights elsewhere in the Constitution. The appeal is usually to the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, often in tandem with the Fourteenth Amendment's specification that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

But slowly, by engaging in expansive readings of those other amendments, the Supreme Court seems to be approaching, by the back door as it were, the original intent of the Ninth Amendment—that there are a lot of rights not explicitly stated.

At some point the courts should simply acknowledge that they have been going about things backwards. Instead of trying to find a constitutional basis for every specific privacy or autonomy or liberty right, they should begin with the assumption that people have a right to do whatever (peaceful, consenting) they desire and require the government to assert some specific constitutional authorization to prohibit it.

Thus, it seems obvious that private homosexual activity should not be the subject of legal attention. The Constitution gives no government power to prohibit homosexual activity because it is no one else's business what goes on in my home or someone else's home.

And it seems clear that my ongoing intimate relationship with some other willing adult partner is none of the government's business either, but so long as it extends certain privileges to contracting heterosexual couples, the Constitution provides no basis for denying “equal protection of the laws” to me and my contracting partner.

Such a reversal of the burden of proof for the legitimacy of government policies would restore a healthy modesty among government authorities and free citizens to conduct their lives for well or ill according to their own personal tastes and aspirations.


My Opinon: I chose this article because it brings up the question of privacy. The author admits that the right to privacy is not specifically stated in the Constitution. However, they go on to try to deduce it from the fourth amendment. As much as I would like to think that I have a right to privacy I do not believe that the Constitution gives me one. I do believe that privacy is something that our society has adopted as being "the right thing to do". My privacy is given to me by my fellow citizens but not by my government. (aren't my fellow citizens essentially my government?)