• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ninth Amendment

Really? And what's the spirit of the Constitution? It's that the power to spend is tied to the power to tax. As the power to tax broadens - as it did with the ratification of the 16th Amendment - then so too does the power to spend for the general welfare.

I don't get that logic.

Here is the 16th amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There is nothing in there that give congress extended reach beyond it's enumerated powers (or the implied powers necessary to satisfy it's enumerated powers).

There is nothing in there that extends beyond that.

And if by "general welfare" you mean (as stated by Madison) those powers necessary to accomplish it's charter as described in the USC, then there is no broadening of any powers.
 
I don't get that logic.

Here is the 16th amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There is nothing in there that give congress extended reach beyond it's enumerated powers (or the implied powers necessary to satisfy it's enumerated powers).

There is nothing in there that extends beyond that.

And if by "general welfare" you mean (as stated by Madison) those powers necessary to accomplish it's charter as described in the USC, then there is no broadening of any powers.

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.
 
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.

On this we agree. General Welfare, again, being limited to those enumerated powers and any implied powers needed to achieve those specifically spelled out.

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

I agree. And yes, the USAF is constitutional. I have heard this raised before and don't see where anyone would disagree.

However, when you say...we'll start a national oil company to supply our planes with jet fuel......probably not going to work in my book. Getting jet fuel is proper. Is starting a national oil company "necessary" ? Absolutely not.

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?

I don't believe that is what Madison said. He was quite clear that congress needed to do whatever was necessary to provide for the common defense. He was very interested in avoiding yet another constitutional convention and wanted to make sure the federal government had the necessary power to satisfy it's charter.

He was also quite clear that said charter was clear and defined (meaning national defense could not be used as justification to do whatever the federal government wanted to do. And to be quite clear, this is the weakness of language (which many of the anti-federalists feared and with good reason). They knew people can and would twist things to make those connections in order to expand the power of the government.
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.

Very skeptical on this point.

I don't see that Madison limited anything that was needed.

Hamilton could be pretty two faced (his national bank support was a real tale) and the "taxing power" was used to justify an otherwise unconstitutional "Social Security" system.

****************************************************

We are off topic.

I am going to start a thread on the General Welfare Clause.

I read back through this thread.

It addresses a few points regarding the 9th.....but there isn't really much to address.

The ninth sits in the background but really isn't used very explicitly in constitutional considerations.
 
On this we agree. General Welfare, again, being limited to those enumerated powers and any implied powers needed to achieve those specifically spelled out.



I agree. And yes, the USAF is constitutional. I have heard this raised before and don't see where anyone would disagree.

However, when you say...we'll start a national oil company to supply our planes with jet fuel......probably not going to work in my book. Getting jet fuel is proper. Is starting a national oil company "necessary" ? Absolutely not.



I don't believe that is what Madison said. He was quite clear that congress needed to do whatever was necessary to provide for the common defense. He was very interested in avoiding yet another constitutional convention and wanted to make sure the federal government had the necessary power to satisfy it's charter.

He was also quite clear that said charter was clear and defined (meaning national defense could not be used as justification to do whatever the federal government wanted to do. And to be quite clear, this is the weakness of language (which many of the anti-federalists feared and with good reason). They knew people can and would twist things to make those connections in order to expand the power of the government.


Very skeptical on this point.

I don't see that Madison limited anything that was needed.

Hamilton could be pretty two faced (his national bank support was a real tale) and the "taxing power" was used to justify an otherwise unconstitutional "Social Security" system.

****************************************************

We are off topic.

I am going to start a thread on the General Welfare Clause.

I read back through this thread.

It addresses a few points regarding the 9th.....but there isn't really much to address.

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

So explain to me the dichotomy in your thinking.... Providing for the Air Force - even though it isn't listed under the spending functions of Congress - is considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the common dense.... but providing for Medicare - even though it isn't listed under the spending function of Congress - presumably shouldn't be considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the general welfare?
 
Right.

And nobody is talking about white supremacy or white privilege these days :rolleyes:.

It’s not a systematic enforced law of the land enforced by the state government anymore.

If it had been left to the states there’d still be Jim Crow.

It took the federal government stepping in to put a stop to it.
 
So explain to me the dichotomy in your thinking.... Providing for the Air Force - even though it isn't listed under the spending functions of Congress - is considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the common dense.... but providing for Medicare - even though it isn't listed under the spending function of Congress - presumably shouldn't be considered "necessary and proper" in providing for the general welfare?

I used this to start another thread on the General Welfare Clause....something I had planned to do.
 
It's redundant. Duh of course other rights exist, and the passage of time has made that ever more obvious.

There's a reason this amendment is so rarely cited. It has no force or effect, also it's duh, and redundant.
 
Never mind me. I have been known as Death Of Threads, due to my knack of saying the wrong thing at the right time.

I do support the General Welfare Clause. If Generals actually need it.
 
On another thread, this topic became a focal point with many very arguments being made.

I'd like to consolidate those thoughts and have a chance to consider some of the very good points that were made in the discussion.

For me personally, I've not been exposed to many discussions around the night amendment.

Certainly, the 10th amendment is something I've paid attention to over the years.

Recently, I've seen some of the writings of Kurt T. Lash. Lash is a professor of constitutional law (now I am not sure what exactly that means) at the University of Richmond. He's written several articles and I believe even some books.

I found this from prof. Lash which I thought I would share as a starting point. I am not saying I am in agreement as I have so much to learn on the subject.

Madison’s description of the Ninth Amendment as “guarding against a latitude of interpretation” is consistent with his originally stated purpose for “the last clause of the fourth resolution.” The Ninth declares that just because the Bill of Rights list some constraints on federal power, this may not be construed to imply that federal power is otherwise unconstrained (Hamilton’s concern).

The Tenth Amendment further declares that all powers not properly construed as falling within those enumerated powers are reserved to the people in the states. Significantly, both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments use the language of popular sovereignty – it is the people’s right to create a national government of limited power and reserve all nondelegated powers and rights to the people in the states.

Between the Founding and Reconstruction, scholars, lawyers, and judges repeatedly and consistently interpreted the Ninth Amendment as working in tandem with the Tenth to preserve the retained powers and rights of the people in the states.


Looking forward to some great discussion.

My apologies for being slow to read and review some of what is posted...

Trying to get this back on track.

The government only has as much power (give up natural rights) as the people cede to it. Or as John Jay said in Federalist 2:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

"Some of their natural rights"......

In fact, as few as possible......

Why ?

As Madiston/Hamilton stated in Federalist 51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

And the more you give the government (any government) it seems the more it will look to take.

That is why the 9th was written.
 
Trying to get this back on track.

The government only has as much power (give up natural rights) as the people cede to it. Or as John Jay said in Federalist 2:

So there is nothing to fear in repealing amendments like the 2A
Democratic governments cannot become tyrannies.


As Madiston/Hamilton stated in Federalist 51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

And the more you give the government (any government) it seems the more it will look to take.

That is why the 9th was written.

The governments purpose is to govern

How can limiting what the government can do, help it in any way ?
 
The governments purpose is to govern

How can limiting what the government can do, help it in any way ?

The purpose of the government is to govern within the scope it was given. If you want all inclusive government move to Russia.

Your question is dumbfounding. Maybe you should ask the folks from late 1930's Germany if they would have limited their government more given a second chance.
 
The one does not follow the other.

Like so many things, old habits die hard.

The constitution was set up to leave the states alone for the most part.

That is how it is written and that is how it is described.

Nope, The Articles of Confederation did that, leading to disastrous failure.
We are not, contrary to popular belief, "fifty separate and sovereign city-states sharing nothing but a common army".
And stating that "The Constitution was set up to leave states alone" is binary thinking, yes even when one says "for the most part", because the Federal Government also exists to simultaneously protect the states, hem them in when they are in error, AND help them when the heavy lifting is more than persons or even states can manage.
That's why federal help for states enduring disasters are a collective effort consisting largely of other states chipping in.

That's the "united" part of the "United States" and the cornerstone of e pluribus unum, out of many, one.
 
Nope, The Articles of Confederation did that, leading to disastrous failure.
We are not, contrary to popular belief, "fifty separate and sovereign city-states sharing nothing but a common army".
And stating that "The Constitution was set up to leave states alone" is binary thinking, yes even when one says "for the most part", because the Federal Government also exists to simultaneously protect the states, hem them in when they are in error, AND help them when the heavy lifting is more than persons or even states can manage.
That's why federal help for states enduring disasters are a collective effort consisting largely of other states chipping in.

That's the "united" part of the "United States" and the cornerstone of e pluribus unum, out of many, one.

1. Citing the Article of Confederation is a strawman. They were never mentioned.

2. The use of the term City-States is lazy. We are 50 separate states. Each state has it's own constitution.

3. The federal government, as Madison pointed out, is nothing without the states. The Federal Government exists because the states decided to band together to form an entity that would be able to carry out certain functions that the states would be less effective at. So if Japan bombs Hawaii, it does not just get Hawaii's reprisal....it gets the whole shooting match. We don't want 50 currencies. etc etc.

4. The federal government is no more capable of correcting states when they are in error than my dead grandmother. As of late, they've shown she'd do a better job.

5. Federal help with disasters might sound good on paper. As of late, it's been shown to be pretty crappy. Not a great example.

6. The United States look like a single entity to those beyond our borders. Looking inward, it was never intended that would be the homogenous states of america.
 
1. Citing the Article of Confederation is a strawman. They were never mentioned.

I mentioned it because you're almost making it sound like we're still UNDER the AoC.
Resorting to tagging "straw man" when you DID not mention something is weak.

What I was pointing out is that the Constitution replaced the AoC precisely because it had outmoded and unworkable ideas like a federal government leaving states...what was your word? ALONE...leaving them alone.
Sorry but windyfoggery about states having their own constitution does not cancel out the role of the federal govt.

Re #3, you're just helping me make my point, thanks.

Re #4 Tell that to Governor Faubus...sounds like I could make book on where you're headed with this...are you an Oath Keeper?

Re #5 Yeah I am pretty sick of underwriting a bunch of ingrate rednecks who then turn around and threaten civil war, but that's the way our union works.

#6. Your opinion isn't intaglioed on any monuments, near as I can tell.
 
[** sigh **]

Once again:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.


Federalist 45
 
The problem is that the Ninth Amendment only applies to the federal government. The Ninth Amendment has never been incorporated by the Supreme Court and applied to the States. Considering how often Ninth Amendment cases come before the Supreme Court, it is not likely ever to be incorporated and applied to the States. Which means States have a free-pass to completely ignore individual sovereignty and the ability for someone to make their own choices with regard to their body.

I've been rereading this thread.

When I came across this, I thought about it a little more.

Your statement is true in that it has never been incorporated. However, many act like it has.

I will point out that the AZ constitution contains the following:

Section 33. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

Just like 44 states have statements that are akin to the 2nd Amendment, I'd be curious how many constitutions have this same kind of language.
 
The purpose of the government is to govern within the scope it was given. If you want all inclusive government move to Russia.

What do you know of the Russian constitution

If a constitution does afford its government the necessary powers it needs to govern, then it is not fit for purpose

We need a 21st century government, not some backward 18th century one, hamstrung by an outdated and obsolete constitution.

Your question is dumbfounding. Maybe you should ask the folks from late 1930's Germany if they would have limited their government more given a second chance.

What changes to the German constitution of the 1930's would you suggest ?

Where, in your opinion, did the German constitution fail ?
 
I mentioned it because you're almost making it sound like we're still UNDER the AoC.
Resorting to tagging "straw man" when you DID not mention something is weak.

What I was pointing out is that the Constitution replaced the AoC precisely because it had outmoded and unworkable ideas like a federal government leaving states...what was your word? ALONE...leaving them alone.
Sorry but windyfoggery about states having their own constitution does not cancel out the role of the federal govt.

Re #3, you're just helping me make my point, thanks.

Re #4 Tell that to Governor Faubus...sounds like I could make book on where you're headed with this...are you an Oath Keeper?

Re #5 Yeah I am pretty sick of underwriting a bunch of ingrate rednecks who then turn around and threaten civil war, but that's the way our union works.

#6. Your opinion isn't intaglioed on any monuments, near as I can tell.

1. No I am not even close. You might want to read the thread before making such a comment. The federal government isn't weak, it is powerless outside of it's enumerated powers. Of course, it's recent usurpations are giving it more power.

2. Yes, I pretty much have said the same thing repeatedly.

3. As I said in 2.

4. No idea of who you are talking about. No idea what an Oath-Keeper is or what he/she signs up for.

5. Gee, if we truly followed federalism, you might not have to. There are a lot of people who are tired of helping people halfway across the country when they'd rather spend those tax dollars in their community.

6. If it were just my opinion, I'd agree. However, those who wrote the constitution were pretty clear on what they intended. Post 166 is a good place to start.
 

What do you know of the Russian constitution ?

If a constitution does not afford its government the necessary powers it needs to govern, then it is not fit for purpose

We need a 21st century government, not some backward 18th century one, hamstrung by an outdated and obsolete constitution

What changes to the German constitution of the 1930's would you suggest ?
Where, in your opinion, did the German constitution fail ?



No answers ?
 
Seems pretty cut and dried. The intent of the 9th was to ensure that the limits of government power WERE constrained to what is written and given TO the government, and not the other way around. The government doesnt get to just assume authority on anything that isnt specifically mentioned as a citizens right.

tragically...the government abuses the 14th to pretty much make everything fit agendas.

This is one point of view (which I don't totally agree with....but do see it much of what they do).

What is frustrating is that people don't even know the 9th and 10th exist.

I've found some very good things to think about (even many I don't agree with).

While there is the usual name calling...there are also some very thoughtful and articulate posters on this board.
 
On another thread, this topic became a focal point with many very arguments being made.

I'd like to consolidate those thoughts and have a chance to consider some of the very good points that were made in the discussion.

For me personally, I've not been exposed to many discussions around the night amendment.

Certainly, the 10th amendment is something I've paid attention to over the years.

Recently, I've seen some of the writings of Kurt T. Lash. Lash is a professor of constitutional law (now I am not sure what exactly that means) at the University of Richmond. He's written several articles and I believe even some books.

I found this from prof. Lash which I thought I would share as a starting point. I am not saying I am in agreement as I have so much to learn on the subject.

Madison’s description of the Ninth Amendment as “guarding against a latitude of interpretation” is consistent with his originally stated purpose for “the last clause of the fourth resolution.” The Ninth declares that just because the Bill of Rights list some constraints on federal power, this may not be construed to imply that federal power is otherwise unconstrained (Hamilton’s concern).

The Tenth Amendment further declares that all powers not properly construed as falling within those enumerated powers are reserved to the people in the states. Significantly, both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments use the language of popular sovereignty – it is the people’s right to create a national government of limited power and reserve all nondelegated powers and rights to the people in the states.

Between the Founding and Reconstruction, scholars, lawyers, and judges repeatedly and consistently interpreted the Ninth Amendment as working in tandem with the Tenth to preserve the retained powers and rights of the people in the states.


Looking forward to some great discussion.

My apologies for being slow to read and review some of what is posted...
No offense, but the ninth and tenth amendments are mostly useless and nonsense.

It doesn't really matter if you delegate authority to the states since states can be corrupt just as much as the federal government.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you grant the people rights since people can become mobs and people can hurt each other.

Meh?

This is one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of the Founding Fathers. There are really basic aspects of human nature that they just totally overlooked and implemented absolutely nothing to address. The balance of powers they pursued doesn't really work because just as much as evil can compete against evil, evil can also collaborate with evil.
 
No offense, but the ninth and tenth amendments are mostly useless and nonsense.

It doesn't really matter if you delegate authority to the states since states can be corrupt just as much as the federal government.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you grant the people rights since people can become mobs and people can hurt each other.

Meh?

Not offended at all by someone's opinion.

State governments (especially in smaller states) are much more accountable than the fed to those in the state.

Using the logic of your third sentence, you'd have to argue all forms of government are useless.
 
Not offended at all by someone's opinion.

State governments (especially in smaller states) are much more accountable than the fed to those in the state.

Using the logic of your third sentence, you'd have to argue all forms of government are useless.

First, all of law is a matter of opinion.

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.

Third, yes, all forms are useless.

What makes government useful is its informal attitudes on how it interprets law, not its formal systems on how it applies law.
 
No offense, but the ninth and tenth amendments are mostly useless and nonsense.

It doesn't really matter if you delegate authority to the states since states can be corrupt just as much as the federal government.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter if you grant the people rights since people can become mobs and people can hurt each other.

Meh?

This is one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of the Founding Fathers. There are really basic aspects of human nature that they just totally overlooked and implemented absolutely nothing to address. The balance of powers they pursued doesn't really work because just as much as evil can compete against evil, evil can also collaborate with evil.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom