The Ninth Amendment

[Ug make hammer]

Next you'll say you support common defense.

I'm not sure what you mean. I take it to mean "defence of all individual rights, enumerated or otherwise."

Slavery is hardly mentioned in the Constitution. I found this carve-out of individual rights:

Article I
Section 9
Clause 1
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

... and there's the Three Fifths Compromise. Slavery was obviously a very sore point. Perhaps by time-limiting the carve-out and by the Compromise, the "general welfare" clause was an attempt to leave open freeing the slaves at some future time, without further amendment being necessary?

I mean "general" is very general indeed. It's broader than "citizens" or even "persons resident" as the slavers could argue that slaves are not citizens or even persons.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Like social spending, education, and healthcare, for example. Those are exclusive State powers and have no business being part of the federal government since the federal government was never granted any authority over those activities.

I could go with a local power to spend on social spending, education and healthcare. However, it does not protect individual rights to those things, if the money for them has to be raised locally. Poor areas provide less to their citizens, and this keeps both the area and the citizen poor and denies them the full benefits of citizenship.

I'm saying, spend locally but tax federally, as they do in the UK.

 

[XDU]

Powers are not delegated to the States. Powers are delegated to the federal government only. The US Constitution prohibits the States from exercising certain powers, but otherwise all the remaining powers already belong to the States. Whereas the federal government may only exercise the powers specifically granted to that body by the US Constitution and no other powers.

That is the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, to show a clear separation of power. Remember, it is not the States attempting to exercise powers the US Constitution granted the federal government, but rather the federal government illegally usurping the powers of the States in order to centralize power. Like social spending, education, and healthcare, for example. Those are exclusive State powers and have no business being part of the federal government since the federal government was never granted any authority over those activities.

The Ninth Amendment merely acknowledges that not every individual right is included within the Bill of Rights, and when combined with the Tenth Amendment implies individual sovereignty or the individual right to make your own decisions regarding your body.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to minimize the corruption of the federal government by minimizing or limiting their power to only what is required for a nation to function.

That doesn't solve the problem though. You just end up with government spending at a state level instead which still crowds out private enterprise.

 

[Glitch]

I could go with a local power to spend on social spending, education and healthcare. However, it does not protect individual rights to those things, if the money for them has to be raised locally. Poor areas provide less to their citizens, and this keeps both the area and the citizen poor and denies them the full benefits of citizenship.

I'm saying, spend locally but tax federally, as they do in the UK.

There is no individual right to social spending, education, or healthcare. Services that requires the labor of others cannot be an individual right. That is called slavery.

Congress may also only levy taxes for those powers which were granted to them by the US Constitution, which does not include social spending, education, and healthcare.

The UK does not have to adhere to the US Constitution, Congress does. The UK government also has unlimited and unrestricted power to do whatever they please because they do not recognize any individual rights. So I would rather the US did not follow the example of the UK. After all, that is why we broke away from England 246 years ago.

 

[NWRatCon]

Look at it this way, Hiker.... we tax to pay for the debt, provide for the common defense and for the general welfare. As we expand the power to tax, we also expand the power to spend on those three areas.

And if you disagree with that... ask yourself this question - is the USAF unconstitutional?

If you take the Madisonian view that spending on the common defense is only limited to the enumerated powers, Congress can spend on the militia, it can spend to raise and support armies, and it can provide and maintain a Navy.

Nothing in there about an Air Force, though, is there?

The reason why the Hamiltonian view is operative is because it gives the Government the flexibility it needs to face changing circumstances. New problems arise, and so the power to tax is expanded to address them. But expanding the power to tax does nothing on it's own.... the spending power must expand along with it if the new and unforeseen problems are to be addressed.

If one looks at the actual text and structure (and history) of the Constitution with an unjaunticed eye, one would see that the authority regarding national defense and general welfare are on par. They are coextensive. Indeed, it can readily be demonstrated that the concerns of the framers were not about an overwhelming "welfare state", but about the militarization of the federal government.

The general plan was for a robust central government, in all practicable details. (The failure of the confederation was patent and recent.) It was to be Supreme regarding interstate, national and international concerns. The plethora of specifics in Article I, section 8 regarding military affairs was not because they were most concerned with national defense, but to create bounds for that authority. No such limitations were needed regarding the general welfare, because that was not seen as a threat to popular sovereignty.

The taxing and spending authorities are coextensive and coordinate. There is nothing that can be taxed for that can't be spent on. It's government 101. It's independent of State authority. If anything, the block grant fetish of Republicans since Nixon is contrary to the Constitutional plan.

The Ninth Amendment may be the most important of the Bill of Rights, because it enunciated a truism that motivated the entire enterprise - the power of sovereignty resides with the people. In the same way that the general welfare clause didn't need elucidation, the Ninth Amendment stood on its own. The other rights were more specific, not because they were more important, but because they were more circumscribed.

 

[Glitch]

That doesn't solve the problem though. You just end up with government spending at a state level instead which still crowds out private enterprise.

There is one significant difference: States are required by law to balance their budget. So there cannot be irrational unlimited spending by government with no accountability, like there currently is with the federal government. Which is why those powers were allocated to the States and not included among the powers of the federal government by the US Constitution.

 

[NWRatCon]

The ninth sits in the background but really isn't used very explicitly in constitutional considerations.

More's the pity.

BTW, if you think Hamilton was two-faced, you haven't given Madison enough consideration. He was leagues beyond Hamilton in that department.

All of our heroes had feet of clay.

 

[NWRatCon]

This is what you quoted from Roberts.

"The general welfare clause should be construed broadly to include anything conducive to the national welfare; it is not limited by the subsequently enumerated powers.

His first sentence is at total variance with spirit of the Constitution.

His tacked on commentary only pours salt in the wound created by his first statement.

I couldn't disagree more. His was an accurate restatement of the Constitutional principle.

 

[NWRatCon]

First, all of law is a matter of opinion.

Opinions, actually.

Second, there's no good reason to believe state governments are more accountable. If anything, lower level authority can be much more cliquey because of its more direct connections with its constituents.

Sing it, brother! The framers were actually very concerned about parochial interests affecting the national interest. It's in all the papers. But, realistically, State governments are no more responsive to their constituencies than the federal government, and often less so (see, COVID). That, however, is the topic for another thread.

What makes government useful is its informal attitudes on how it interprets law, not its formal systems on how it applies law.

A concept not fully appreciated.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm reminded, again, that the topic of the thread is my favorite Amendment, the Ninth.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Tenth Amendment is sufficient proof right-wingers only allege to care about being legal to the law in border threads. Our Constitutions are clear and express not implied in any way whatsoever.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Equal protection of our at-will employment laws for the Poor could solve simple poverty overnight.

Why do right-wingers prefer their bigotry and fascism to Capitalism every time the economic opportunity presents itself?

 

[HikerGuy83]

More's the pity.

BTW, if you think Hamilton was two-faced, you haven't given Madison enough consideration. He was leagues beyond Hamilton in that department.

All of our heroes had feet of clay.

I am aware of some of Madison's schizophrenia.

Designing a government from near scratch isn't easy. Especially, when you have so many hot-heads in the room.

Hamilton just seemed more slimy to me.

Given that, again, loyalty might have more to do with personal preference (and ideology). Of which I am aware.

 

[NWRatCon]

So long as you're aware.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So long as you're aware.

Have you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" ?

 

[NWRatCon]

Have you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" ?

I have not. I'm not enamored of Sowell, but if you think it's pertinent, I'll look for it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I have not. I'm not enamored of Sowell, but if you think it's pertinent, I'll look for it.

I would be curious to hear why you are not enamored....perhaps another day.

The premise of this book (the Conflict of Visions) is that you can take any number of disconnected issues (say health care, global warming, & food stamps.....my example not his) that engender debate. And if you take a group of people (say 100..again my example) and let them partition into the typical two camps we so often see form on issues.....you will find that, in general.....again, in general, they will tend to be many of the same people on one side of the next (disconnected) issue. And the next and the next. While there will be some migration.....you will find that happen repeatedly. Therefore, something might exist below (meaning more fundamentally than) the issue itself.

He then goes on to examine this concept, not completely....as he says....much more work to be done.....in a very intriguing way.

The book is not an easy read, but is very thought provoking.

Just a suggestion.

You might look at reviews before proceeding.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Second, there's no good reason to believe state governments are more accountable. If anything, lower level authority can be much more cliquey because of its more direct connections with its constituents.

I guess that backs up your statement that all these statements are a matter of opinion.

I can see and talk to my state representative a lot easier than I can talk to my federal representative.

My vote for a state representative is much more powerful.

The issues before the state representative are more germane to me.

And yet there is no reason to believe state governments are more accountable ?

That is simply wishful thinking to hold up an ideology.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The reason why the Hamiltonian view is operative is because it gives the Government the flexibility it needs to face changing circumstances. New problems arise, and so the power to tax is expanded to address them. But expanding the power to tax does nothing on it's own.... the spending power must expand along with it if the new and unforeseen problems are to be addressed.

What changing circumstances ?

If Arizona does not want to do something, the idea that the federal government can coerce it via highway dollars is total garbage.

Please tell me what changing circumstances in my life the federal government is better suited to address than my state, county or city government and why.

Hamilton was not a very good person in my opinion. He was a charlatan.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Ninth Amendment is what gives standing to this premise--There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Article of Amendment.

Thus,

This must have greater precedence in legal venues:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[XDU]

I guess that backs up your statement that all these statements are a matter of opinion.

I can see and talk to my state representative a lot easier than I can talk to my federal representative.

My vote for a state representative is much more powerful.

The issues before the state representative are more germane to me.

And yet there is no reason to believe state governments are more accountable ?

That is simply wishful thinking to hold up an ideology.

Why is that a good thing though? You're not the only one who can approach your local representatives more easily. Your peers can too, peers who are not automatically genuine in their approaches.

Power can be used maliciously as well, and what's germane to you is yet another way you can be manipulated or neglected.

Favoritism and corruption are not restricted by locality.

 

[NWRatCon]

What changing circumstances ?

Every day, in every way, the world changes.

If Arizona does not want to do something, the idea that the federal government can coerce it via highway dollars is total garbage.

This doesn't make sense, actually. Whose dollars are they? "The largest source of funding for state agencies is the federal government. Arizona receives nearly $23 billion in federal dollars. The General Fund provides nearly $13 billion. Other funds include $5.9 billion appropriated by the legislature and $11.9 billion non-appropriated funds." State Budget 101 (Az Ctr. Econ. Prog.) Can the federal government not spend its money the way it intends, and ensure that others that access its money comport their behavior with standards they establish? In what other context does this not happen?

Please tell me what changing circumstances in my life the federal government is better suited to address than my state, county or city government and why.

The simplest, of course, is the most obvious: the environment. For example, the Colorado River runs through Arizona but it neither begins nor ends there. Its course, and its resource, is therefore of national interest. Arizona controls neither its source (which is Colorado, appropriately enough), nor its discharge into the ocean, which is in Mexico, and for a considerable stretch it forms the boundary between California and Arizona, Utah and Arizona, and Nevada and Arizona. Can Arizona or its subordinate units control the Colorado alone? Should it? Arizona’s water supplies are drying up. How will its farmers survive? (NatGeo) "Lacking deep snow in the Rocky Mountains to feed it, the Colorado River—which supplies some 40 million people and 1.75 million acres of irrigated land—has dwindled. Its enormous reservoirs have drained to half-empty, and research suggests that climate change will contribute to a further 20 percent drop in streamflow by 2050." Should we, as a nation, leave Arizona to fend for itself?

What about environmental degradation? Wildfires as a result of climate change are not Arizona's fault, exclusively, but what authority/ability does Arizona have to affect it, alone? Again, should Arizona have to fend for itself?

Hamilton was not a very good person in my opinion. He was a charlatan.

LOL. All the founders had clay feet. Wanna discuss Madison's, Jefferson's personal behavior (particularly as regards Hamilton)? "Snake" doesn't begin to cover it.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Why is that a good thing though? You're not the only one who can approach your local representatives more easily. Your peers can too, peers who are not automatically genuine in their approaches.

Power can be used maliciously as well, and what's germane to you is yet another way you can be manipulated or neglected.

Favoritism and corruption are not restricted by locality.

Why is what a good thing ?

The fact that I can have a greater influence over my situation working with people who live where I live and see the same things I see, as opposed to say, Nancy Pelosi ?

You really have to ask that question ?

Your second line is meaningless to the post I put up...as is your third.

How they apply to the post you quoted will require a little mor explanation.

I'd prefer to not try to read between the lines.

 

[XDU]

The fact that I...

Stop.

Go back to where I said, "You're not the only one" and continue from there.