Misplaced Pages

#380619

65-766: Ninth Amendment may refer to the: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution , part of the Bill of Rights Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India , 1961 amendment allowing transfer of territory to Pakistan in Berubari, West Bengal following certain treaties between the countries including the Nehru-Noon Agreement relating to India-East Pakistan enclaves Ninth Amendment of

130-635: A bill of rights ... that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to

195-422: A colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp,

260-638: A concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights ... I do not mean to imply that the ... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government ;... While the Ninth Amendment ;– and indeed

325-512: A confederation's constituent states. The proposed Constitution creates a republic with each branch of government grounded in the people without hereditary offices. Its mixed nature was both federated and consolidated, but in all cases was based on "the superior power of the people". The states would remain important because the House of Representatives were chosen by people in each state, and the Senate

390-399: A constitutional amendment specifying: That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution. This proposal ultimately led to

455-791: A fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms in the United States that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the Second Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. It was at first believed by our greatest judges and jurists that the whole English Constitution was implied in the Federal Constitution; that there is, as it were, an unwritten Constitution which we inherited in America and which consisted, not only of

520-469: A judge should not apply a constitutional provision like this one if he does not know what it means; the example Bork then gave was a clause covered by an inkblot. Upon further study, Bork later ascribed a meaning to the Ninth Amendment in his book The Tempting of America . In that book, Bork subscribed to the interpretation of constitutional historian Russell Caplan, who asserted that this Amendment

585-712: A justice of the United States Supreme Court . His control of the Virginia legislature enabled his partisans to elect the only two Anti-Federalist U.S. Senators in the First Congress . The following list is of the delegates to the Virginia ratifying convention and their vote on ratification. A total of 170 delegates were elected. Of these, 168 voted on ratification: 89 for, 79 against. The delegates included representatives from modern-day Kentucky and West Virginia , which were part of Virginia at

650-483: A later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed the view, in the dissenting opinion of Troxel v. Granville , 530 U.S. 57 (2000), that: The Declaration of Independence ... is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights

715-515: A national, consolidated government would overburden Virginians with direct taxes in addition to state taxes, and that government of an extensive territory must necessarily destroy liberty. Although he conceded that the Confederation government was "inefficient", he wanted a clear line between the jurisdictions of the federal and state governments, including the judiciary, because he feared the shared powers would lead to "the destruction of one or

SECTION 10

#1732772581381

780-646: A plausible pretense for claiming that power. But the two Justices who dissented in Griswold replied that Goldberg was mistaken to invoke the Ninth as authority. Hugo Black 's dissent said: My Brother GOLDBERG has adopted the recent discovery that the Ninth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause, can be used by this Court as authority to strike down all state legislation which this Court thinks violates "fundamental principles of liberty and justice", or

845-584: Is contrary to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people". ... [O]ne would certainly have to look far beyond the language of the Ninth Amendment to find that the Framers vested in this Court any such awesome veto powers over lawmaking, either by the States or by the Congress. Nor does anything in the history of the Amendment offer any support for such a shocking doctrine. The whole history of

910-523: Is different from Wikidata All article disambiguation pages All disambiguation pages Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution In United Public Workers v. Mitchell , the U.S. Supreme Court held that rights contained in the 9th or 10th amendments could not be used to challenge the exercise of enumerated powers by the government: "If granted power is found, necessarily

975-406: Is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Professor Laurence Tribe shares the view that this amendment does not confer substantive rights: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment

1040-490: Is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." In 2000, Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He said that the Ninth Amendment refers to "a universe of rights, possessed by the people – latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law ... a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that

1105-704: The " Virginia Federal Convention ") was a convention of 168 delegates from Virginia who met in 1788 to ratify or reject the United States Constitution , which had been drafted at the Philadelphia Convention the previous year. The Convention met and deliberated from June 2 through June 27 in Richmond at the Richmond Theatre , presently the site of Monumental Church . Judge Edmund Pendleton , Virginia delegate to

1170-661: The Anti-federalists had the oratorical advantage with Patrick Henry, the Federalists were better organized under the leadership of judges who had been trained by George Wythe, and former Continental Army officers who aligned with George Washington. Patrick Henry questioned the authority of the Philadelphia Convention to presume to speak for "We, the people" instead of "We, the states". In his view, delegates should have only recommended amendments to

1235-509: The Articles of Confederation. Consolidated government would put an end to Virginia's liberties and state government. Nine states making a new nation without the rest would abrogate treaties and place Virginia in great peril. Edmund Randolph had changed from his opposition in the Philadelphia Convention to now supporting adoption for the sake of preserving the Union. He noted that the Confederation

1300-549: The Bill of Rights was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, not against the states. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, which is a government of enumerated powers . Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment . Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William Brennan ) expressed this view in

1365-434: The Bill of Rights. According to Barnett, "The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before." According to professor and former Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell , [T]he rights retained by the people are indeed individual natural rights, but those rights enjoy precisely the same status and are protected in

SECTION 20

#1732772581381

1430-589: The Constitution of Ireland , extended the right to vote to certain non-citizens Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of South Africa Topics referred to by the same term [REDACTED] This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Ninth Amendment . If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ninth_Amendment&oldid=1151178660 " Category : Disambiguation pages Hidden categories: Short description

1495-514: The Constitution. The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing

1560-765: The Constitutional Convention, served as the convention's president by unanimous consent . The Convention convened "in the temporary capital at Cary and Fourteenth streets" on June 2, 1788, and elected Edmund Pendleton its presiding officer. The next day the Convention relocated to the Richmond Academy (later the site of the Richmond Theatre and now the site of Monumental Church where it continued to meet until June 27.) The Virginia Ratifying Convention narrowly approved joining

1625-667: The English Constitution where not expressly altered by our own but of all matters of natural right and justice. Doubtless, this is the intended meaning of the Ninth Amendment ... Such is not, perhaps, the modern view; but the question has become, in fact, academic, for the reason that in 120 years of interpretation our Supreme Court has ever found some clause in the Federal Constitution into which to read any English constitutional principle not therein expressly altered. Virginia Ratifying Convention The Virginia Ratifying Convention (also historically referred to as

1690-479: The Federalists railroaded the Anti-federalists in an all or nothing choice, in the Virginia Convention the Federalists had made efforts to reconcile with the Anti-federalists by recommending amendments like that of Virginia's Bill of Rights preamble to its 1776 Constitution. The American experiment was imagined to become one of successive constitutional changes to meet changing circumstances. Virginia

1755-403: The House of Representatives as well as from Alexander Hamilton 's Federalist Paper No. 84: I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted, and, on this very account, would afford

1820-457: The Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government", as Madison put it. The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791, upon ratification by three-fourths of the states. The final form of the amendment ratified by the states is as follows: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by

1885-469: The Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell , 330 U.S. 75, 94–95. In support of his interpretation of the Ninth, Goldberg quoted from Madison's speech in

1950-567: The Ninth Amendment to justify judicially enforcing rights that are not enumerated. For example, the District Court that heard the case of Roe v. Wade ruled in favor of a "Ninth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion," although it stressed that the right was "not unqualified or unfettered." However, Justice William O. Douglas rejected that view; Douglas wrote that "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." See Doe v. Bolton (1973). Douglas joined

2015-440: The Ninth Amendment was intended to vitiate the maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius according to which the express mention of one thing excludes all others: [T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at

Ninth Amendment - Misplaced Pages Continue

2080-406: The Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. And Potter Stewart 's dissent said: [T]o say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion,

2145-548: The Ninth Amendment. In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows: 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

2210-573: The Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered", United States v. Darby , 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 124, was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by

2275-894: The Tidewater and Northern Neck, the Shenandoah Valley, and western counties, although the Kentucky counties along the Ohio River feared being abandoned to the Spanish under the new government. The Anti-federalists found strength in the central Piedmont, Southside, and southwest counties. ≥ Unlike the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Ratifying Convention was open to the public and crowds filled

2340-603: The adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights points the other way, and the very material quoted by my Brother GOLDBERG shows that the Ninth Amendment was intended to protect against the idea that, "by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power" to the Federal Government, "those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government [the United States], and were consequently insecure." That Amendment

2405-494: The entire Bill of Rights – originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum,

2470-406: The extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse. The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while

2535-422: The framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment intended that no rights that they already held would be lost through omission. Law professor Charles Lund Black took a similar position, though Stimson and Black respectively acknowledged that their views differed from the modern view, and differed from the prevalent view in academic writing. Gun rights activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for

2600-405: The galleries along with the press. Delegates changed sides over the debates, demonstrators paraded in the streets, and the press churned out accounts of the proceedings along with commentary pamphlets. The Federalist Papers first became a factor in state ratification conventions outside New York in Virginia. Although a majority of Virginians were said to be against adoption of the Constitution, and

2665-432: 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. Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge

Ninth Amendment - Misplaced Pages Continue

2730-495: The lack of a Bill of Rights in Philadelphia and would continue in his opposition. The Virginia ratification included a recommendation for a Bill of Rights , and Madison subsequently led the First Congress to send the Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. On receiving the proposed Constitution from the Philadelphia Convention, Congress initiated a ratification procedure for the proposed Constitution which by-passed

2795-724: The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe , which stated that a federally enforceable right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Gibson v. Matthews , 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991) that

2860-466: The new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84 , Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson , "I conceive that in a certain degree   ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted" by Article One, Section   8 of

2925-581: The objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail." Some scholars have taken a different position and challenged the Court's reasoning, while other scholars have agreed with the Court’s reasoning. The amendment, as proposed by Congress in 1789 and later ratified as the Ninth Amendment, reads as follows: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by

2990-425: The other." Madison pointed out that the history of Confederations like that provided in the Articles of Confederation government were inadequate in the long run, both with the ancient and with the modern (1700s) Germans, Dutch and Swiss. They brought "anarchy and confusion", disharmony and foreign invasion. Efficient government can only come from direct operation on individuals, it can never flow from negotiations among

3055-454: The people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder. Since Griswold , some judges have tried to use

3120-403: The people retain, which in time may be enacted into law". Similarly, journalist Brian Doherty has argued that the Ninth Amendment "specifically roots the Constitution in a natural rights tradition that says we are born with more rights than any constitution could ever list or specify." Robert Bork , often considered an originalist , stated during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing that

3185-503: The people. The courts have generally not regarded the Ninth Amendment as either limiting governmental power, or justifying its expansion. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it in U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell 330 U.S. 75 (1947): "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail." The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that

3250-639: The people. When the U.S. Constitution was put to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section   8 of

3315-470: The powers delegated by the constitution". To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress: The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so 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. This

SECTION 50

#1732772581381

3380-620: The proposed United States under a Constitution of supreme national law as authorized by " We, the People " of the United States. James Madison led those in favor, Patrick Henry , delegate to the First Continental Convention and Revolutionary wartime governor, led those opposed. Governor Edmund Randolph , who had refused to sign the Constitution in the Philadelphia Convention, chose Virginia's Ratifying Convention to support adoption. George Mason had refused to sign due to

3445-409: The relation of unenumerated natural rights to a positive law closely resembles the relationship between common law and legislation: the common law governs in the absence of contrary legislation, and sometimes even guides or limits the interpretation of ambiguous or overbroad statutes, but does not prevail in the teeth of specific statutory overrides. This mode of interpretation offers a middle way between

3510-403: The representatives of the people have reached the contrary conclusion ... If I am correct about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, neither of these approaches is entirely correct. Rather, an assertion of a natural right (generally founded on common law or other long-standing practice) will be judicially enforceable unless there is specific and explicit positive law to the contrary. This allows

3575-441: The representatives of the people, rather than members of the judiciary, to make the ultimate determination of when natural rights should yield to the peace, safety, and happiness of society. Still others, such as Thomas B. McAffee, have argued that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated "residuum" of rights which the federal government was never empowered to violate. According to lawyer and diplomat Frederic Jesup Stimson ,

3640-464: The same way, as before the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. They are not relinquished, denied, or disparaged. Nor do natural rights become "constitutional rights." They are simply what all retained rights were before the enactment of the Bill of Rights: a guide to equitable interpretation and a rationale for the narrow construction of statutes that might be thought to infringe them, but not superior to explicit positive law. This understanding of

3705-475: The sitting state legislatures, going directly to the people of the country, state by state. Four delegates, James Madison with Edmund Randolph for the Federalists and Patrick Henry with George Mason for the Anti-federalists made most of the speeches of the Convention; 149 of the 170 delegates were silent. An early estimate gave the Federalists seeking ratification a slim margin of 86 to Anti-Federalists rejecting at 80, with four unknowns. Federalists came from

3770-485: The two usual poles of unenumerated rights jurisprudence. One pole maintains that if a claimed right cannot be found in the Constitution, even applying a liberal construction to its terms, it is entitled to no protection at all ... The other pole maintains that there are unwritten natural rights whose content must inevitably be determined, finally and without the possibility of legislative override, by judges. These rights then receive full constitutional protection even when

3835-425: Was "totally inadequate" and leading to American downfall. The new Constitution would repair the inadequacies of the Articles. If something were not done, the Union would be lost. The new government should be based on the people who would be governed by it, not the intermediary states. The Constitution should be ratified, along with any "practical" amendments, after the new nation was begun. George Mason countered that

3900-416: Was a floor leader in the first session of the First Congress . Madison rewrote the various state proposals into twelve proposals from Congress as amended, sent to the States for ratification by three-fourths of them. Patrick Henry's hostility to the government under the Constitution was so strong that he subsequently refused to join it, turning down offers to serve as United States Secretary of State and as

3965-424: Was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version. The final text of the Ninth Amendment, like Madison's draft, speaks of other rights than those enumerated in the Constitution. The character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights (emphasis added): It has been said, by way of objection to

SECTION 60

#1732772581381

4030-500: Was chosen by the state legislatures. The Constitution limited the national government to enumerated powers. The Virginia Ratification (Federal) Convention made a final vote on George Wythe's motion to ratify, passing it 89 to 79. Virginians reserved the right to withdraw from the new government. The remedy for federal “injury or oppression” included amending the Constitution. Unlike the Pennsylvania Convention where

4095-417: Was meant to ensure that the federal Bill of Rights would not affect provisions in state law that restrain state governments. A libertarian originalist, Randy Barnett has argued that the Ninth Amendment requires what he calls a presumption of liberty. Barnett also argues that the Ninth Amendment prevents the government from invalidating a ruling by either a jury or lower court through strict interpretation of

4160-404: Was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government", but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. ... [F]or a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that

4225-532: Was the tenth state to ratify the new Constitution. New York followed a month later on July 26, 1788. The new government began operating with eleven states on March 4, 1789. The convention recommended the addition of a bill of rights but did not make ratification contingent upon it. Many of the ideas presented during this convention were later incorporated into the United States Bill of Rights . James Madison, elected to Congress from his home district

#380619