States' Rights and The 'Slow Rot' Principle

     Has the Ninth Amendment had little effect in the courts? It has certainly not had the power of a 'rule of construction', as James Madison said it was.
     The enlargement of federal powers in the previous century were able to be accomplished because the Tenth Amendment "does not prevent expansive interpretations of enumerated federal powers...render[ing] meaningless
the Tenth's reservation of powers to the states "[1]

     "Thus statism was to come," wrote Ayn Rand, "not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption..."

     Critics of the loss of the federalism model claim the Tenth Amendment merely says the States retain all powers not ceded to the Federal government; and because of Rand's "slow rot" principle, those 'expansive interpretations'. Very recently discovered historical documentation show that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were intended to work together so that "the Ninth prohibited interpretations of enumerated power that disparaged those states’ rights."[2]
     Well, how was this connection between the two Amendments supposed to work? (And why has this scholarship been ignored until now?) States that had demanded the relationship, like Virginia, held up ratification of the Bill of Rights for two years because they didn't think the Ninth was adequate to the job. But James Madison convinced them it was, in a speech to Congress opposing the National Bank (Feb. 2, 1791).
     "Madison's draft of the Ninth Amendment," wrote Kurt T. Lash in this new documentation called The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, "contained a rule of interpretation expressly limiting the constructive enlargement of federal power." Madison himself is said to have expressly stated that the altered version found in the Bill. "Madison's speech removed any ambiguity regarding his understanding of the Ninth Amendment, and the Virginia Assembly was entitled to rely on Madison's description of the Ninth when, only a few months later, it ratified the Bill of Rights."[1]
     Originalism pertains to the historical documents left behind by the Founders as to what they perceived to be the meaning of their words. See March 8 TPO Because it was Madison who wrote the original wording of the Ninth Amendment, and then convinced other Founders of its meaning, upon which they then ratified the Bill, it is Madison's words we must take into account.
     There is a world of difference between "original meaning" and "original intent". I will discuss that in the next blog.

     



[1] Texas Law Review [Vol. 83:331] 336
[2] Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Review

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Original Meaning of Ninth Amendment Is Lost in Modern Jurisprudence

     The Ninth Amendment is the Constitutional description of "individual sovereignty".
     "Those Virginians, such as Patrick Henry and George Mason," wrote Dr. Roger M. Firestone,[1] "who argued most strongly for the Bill of Rights, knew that the individual would require defenses against the authority of the state. [ ] The battle now is not between the Republicans and Democrats, which are merely parties, nor between liberals and conservatives, who dispute over values, but, as it always has been, between liberty and tyranny...[ ] Despite the efforts of some to 'deny or disparage' its meaning, the Ninth Amendment stands, not as a waterblot,* but as a watershed, separating those who would yield to despots...."
     Jefferson wrote[2] about the inseparable and indispensable economic aspect of individual liberty, and how just laws were designed to protect the equal rights of all individuals.
     "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day...", wrote Joseph J. Ellis.[3]
     As Van Ronk points out,[4] the Ninth Amendment "unequivocally vindicated the political doctrine that there are rights (plural) which exist independently of any written accounting in a political or legal document; and its corollary, that rights ultimately do not derive from written documents but precede and transcend them." 
     "Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect."[5]
     Is it not plain enough that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
     Apparently not. An Originalist interpretation, given the historical background of the Founders who demanded this provision and their reasons for it, 'other' rights retained by the people are all of those not 'enumerated'. It was the Federalists, after all, who pointed out that the federal government was not given the Constitutional power to trample on individual liberties, and for this very reason believed it was dangerous to create a Bill of Rights at all because "an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties."[5]

     As Robert F. McDonnell points out,[6] it was "rendered virtually useless by years of encroachment by the federal government and the ever-fading concept of federalism." This would indicate the Federalists, anti-Bill-of-Rights to begin with, were correct about that "implied power". But he makes the counter-point that Jefferson set out carefully the statement about 'self-evident' truths on which our freedoms are based."
     And so it was that Patrick Henry, James Mason, Edmund Randolph and others wanted it known in writing what Jefferson's 'self-evident' truths were based upon: "the primacy of the individual and the knowledge that unchecked governments have a tendency to subvert those rights."[6]
     But Madison made it clear to the Founders that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, [ ] and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement," because, Madison said, of "last clause of the fourth resolution.''[7]
     And yet Bork's "inkblot" has had little effect in the courts. We will examine why, next time.


[1]  http://www.mastermason.com/rfire/masonry/waterblot.html
[2]  http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr6.html
[3]  http://joseph%20j.%20ellis/
[4]  http://www.vanronk.info/2011/02/ninth-amendment-originally-speaking.html
[5]  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment
[6]  http://static.record-eagle.com/edits/know_your_rights/26ninth.htm 
[7]  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/#t2

*Robert Bork called it an "'inkblot' on the Constitution."

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

The Ninth Amendment, Liberals, and Conservatives

     On March 11, I wrote, "if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them."
     Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
     That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
     Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
     "The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
     In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
    OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
    If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
     But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
     What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
     Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
     Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
     That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
     The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
     And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:

"Whosoever shall act in accordance with the principle that no one may initiate aggression against another, shall not be found guilty of illegal acts."

 *1 2 3 4


© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

What is Allegiance to the "United States"

     Allegiance to the government of the United States is not the same as allegiance to the State of which one is a legal resident. Article XIV, adopted in 1868, states that everyone who is born a citizen or is naturalized and who is subject to the jurisdiction of United States "are citizens of the United States."

     "The citizen was not, under the theory of States' rights, in contact with the National Government. He owed allegiance to his State, and the State dealt with the Nation. That theory was definitely set aside by [the Fourteenth] Amendment." *

     Americans now owed allegiance to both authorities. Congressman John Bingham was the principal author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, the part with the words "citizen of the United States". "The phrase 'citizen of the United States' had been used for nearly 8 decades before the Civil War, but always to speak of persons within federal territories." Original Intent.org 

"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation." John C. Calhoun

     We unintentionally created what would become a behemoth national government, and it was entirely within the purview of the original Constitution because we had amended the original Constitution. But did creating 'national powers' within the 'federal' government automatically give it the broad powers it has today, with hundreds of federal agencies allowed to make law, and the President allowed to make legally binding executive orders, when the first sentence in the Constitution states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"?
     Federal powers began to expand, says Doug Fiedor, in 1825 (Wayman v. Southard) when Congress unconstitutionally delegated the power to the federal court to establish its own rules of practice." In that case, Chief Justice Marshall therefore denied that the delegation [of those powers] was impermissible," and "In 1940, that power was even written into law."
     In future blogs, I will continue to explain how federal expansionism became unlawfully practiced.
     For now it is enough to say that when I pledge allegiance to the United States, it is not the nation that James Madison and the other signers of the Constitution conceived, nor the same federal government that Calhoun described. It is a nation in which both parties conceive of positive rights as an extension of their Fourteenth Amendment duty to protect (and further define) the 'citizen of the United States'. 
     The defining of such a citizen' should have been severely limited, by by then it was too late to stop the national train.

* All asterisks in this post refer to my favorite pre-WWII reference on the Constitution: Constitution of the United States; Its Sources and Application; Thomas J. Norton, copyright 1943

Obama Economics is Artificially Hobbesian

     We are not flawed by nature, as Hobbes believed; yet we are not the way nature intended, either. 'Natural law', on which even the UN Charter is partly based, doesn't allow for such things as jihad, no matter what Hobbes may have thought about man being in a constant state of war.  
     It was Locke whose ideas were on the money, and from which were derived the Bill of Rights, in which the Ninth Amendment states that we still retain those natural rights which are not enumerated in the other Amendments. http://teapartyoriginalism.blogspot.com/…
     If you believe in Hobbes, you can accept the idea, if not the form, of jihad. If you believe in Jefferson's version of natural law, jihad is an abomination. When we literally had our gun sights on Osama bin Laden and our men were told to stand down and not take him out, that was an abomination; by the same logic that was used, we would not have killed Hitler in 1939, when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
     The 'command economics' of the Obama Administration and some similar actions in previous administrations are an abomination against the Ninth Amendment. They put Americans in a state of war against other Americans--as all command economics have done. The most famous of them, of course, are Social Security and Medicare; but the Tea Party, nor other conservatives, are calling for their abolition. They merely want to make them smaller, or in the case of S.S., to privatize it. That doesn't remove it from the field of command economics.
     No, we are are not acting in the way nature intended, so we are not the way nature intended us to be. We are fulfilling in many ways the wrongful description of being a species always at war with itself, because we are not listening to John Locke who told us "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
     "...command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies." Investopedia
     Yet, our government under President Obama is now telling us how much coal, versus how much oil, versus how much nuclear, versus how much "green" electricity we are to produce. It has (as of this writing) approved only one permit for oil drilling in the Gulf since the BP spill. Obama hates coal and says there is no such thing as 'clean' burning of it; nuclear reactors are off the table; and yet this Administration has given hundreds of millions to certain cities to build "recharching" stations for the coming of the electric car--which the government is "commanding" be built.
   This administration is even mandating the demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to produce any new electricity--even when  they are pebble bed modular reactors, very safe and extremely cheap.
     The idea is to maintain the current levels of electric usage, even while consumers know of much less expensive ways to run an economy:
1>produce more electricity, thereby putting more people to work and lowering the cost of power;
2>quit telling us how to use our capital, which only creates an artificial but untrue proof of Hobbe's war among men.   Or perhaps it isn't true that men such as Obama, Harding, FDR, and Hillary Clinton (Clinton-care) are not true Hobbesians. Maybe they think Hobbes was correct and simply "work" his system as if no systems with built-in justice existed:
     "Locke's state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.'". Joseph J. Ellis
     Governments ought not be 'secured' in order to institute intellectual and economic wars among men, but to prevent them with open markets of ideas and goods. If we continue on the Obama Road to ruin, our great-grandchildren will be burning candles and wondering why the word "I" has been banned.

© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

The Unenumerated Rights in the Ninth Amendment

    After writing last week on the Big Government and the Ninth Amendment I was looking at other blogs and articles on the Ninth, and discovered this article:
    "Unfortunately, the 9th Amendment is hated by many conservatives as well as progressives. While being grilled by the Senate, Robert Bork said that the 9th Amendment had no more legal significance than an inkblot on the Constitution. There are two kinds of conservatives, those who want to return to Constitutional principles of a limited government that protects individual rights and those that want to establish an American Empire."
   I also found this, from my good email friend Tibor Machan (whom I met only once in 1979):
   "Many politicians are afraid of the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many of their intellectual cheerleaders in the academy and media show equal disdain for this portion of that legal document. Why?" He goes on:

   "Why should the Constitution make this point anyway? Because, actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible -- whereas, listing the powers of government, which in the American system are taken to be limited and restricted, can be listed without having to produce a mammoth document."

   The progressive nature of modern American politics infects both sides of the isles in Congress, as Bork's statement makes clear in the ugliest of terms. It is in the nature of 'listing the powers of government' that limits it, and it's the nature of the Ninth Amendment to prevent limits on the behavior of Americans.
   But when Progressives are stupid enough to state aloud that "the difficulty of getting the Constitution amended" is reason enough for not only ignoring such provisions as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but for tromping on them with judicial activism and with legislation so complicated that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said with a smile, and without a hint of irony, that "We must pass this legislation so that you can see what is in it," it is clear that the Tea Party is far from getting the message that Originalism isn't about "smaller government"; it is about Constitutional government.
   But what Tea Partier have you ever heard speak of the Ninth Amendment? One of the "innumerable rights" preserved by the Ninth is the right to be free of mandates such as the requirement to purchase something from the market place--or be fined.
   This mandate of Obama-care takes "demand-based economics" to a new level. Fortunately, if this situation is handled correctly, it can be used to unravel the demand economics being forced on us by a "green" government, such as the unwanted production of bio-gas and the eventual "phasing out" (by government fiat) of incandescent light bulbs.
   Unfortunately, if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them. (They apparently don't see that there is no "unprogressive" argument being made.) And that is what will happen if the party doesn't begin to understand this ideological war isn't about "smaller" government, but about Constitutional government.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Congress and Absolutes

 I answer questions in philosophy and in history in Yahoo's Q&A forum called Yahoo! Answers. Recently, someone asked how "the good" should be defined in terms of "context". Here is my answer:

A good example is in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, in which a hero point-blank shoots to death a military soldier--because he can't make the decision to let her have the prisoner (even though the soldier knows she is trusted by the government)--or adhere to the orders he was given to keep the prisoner, who he, the soldier, knows absolutely is being tortured in secret.

   The man being tortured is also one of the heroes and is being rescued. The soldier doesn't even say "Yes" or "No"; he is confused, unfocused, hoping for, you might say, a sign from the heavens about what to do--and the hero had a gun pointed right at him, but he can't make up his mind. So she shoots him dead.
   Yet, Rand was a vocal, ardent, and radical advocate for the sanctity of human life. "Individualism," she wrote, echoing Locke and Jefferson and Madison and others, "regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being." But, to keep this situation of "what is the good" in context, she also wrote this:

"Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics.

   The soldier could not decide which action to take, and while the gun was obviously a coercion, so was his gun, which if he had time he would have pointed at the hero. The soldier was violating the first paragraph, about individual sovereignty, by keeping the prisoner who was being tortured. You might ask, why was he being tortured? Because he was the good guy, and the bad guys (the government in this novel) wanted the tortured hero to work for them. The soldier had to have known this.
   If individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then it was moral to kill the soldier who couldn't make a soldierly decision, in order to save the hero who wanted the evil government to be subordinate to moral law--which they were not.
   Now, that is a long example. But it is one that is rarely understood about that novel. And since it was written by an advocate of absolute human rights, it puts "absolute rights" into context--save the hero, or let the villains have their way.
  
   This concept of "absolutism" is something the Tea Party as a whole doesn't comprehend any better than a Progressive, whether a Republican, or a Democrat. There are no absolutists in Congress, save a few who are absolute only on one or two specific issues, but not broadly and fully, and in context of what "absolute Originalist reading of the Constitution" means.
   While there is room for debate even in an Originalist reading, there is no debate that it is a document of negative liberty, not of positive liberty. If there is any member of Congress who you can envision as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, he or she may be one of those who holds to an absolute idea here and there--but I'll bet s/he couldn't explain why s/he believes it to be an 'absolute'.




© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa

Big Government and the Ninth Amendment

   The Tea Party lacks for a lot of things. Number 1 is the intellectual basis for arguing why government should be smaller. "Government should be smaller!" the T-Partiers chant, but their argument is that we can not afford it any longer, as if to say, "If we had all the money in the world, we'd be ok with 'big' government".
   Big government ought to be big, if the big problems of the big world call for it. There is nothing wrong with big government so long as it is Constitutionally doing what it ought to be doing, not doing what it ought not be doing, and that what it does that it 'ought to' can be paid for.
   Therein lies the problem. More than 100 years of Progressivism have given rise to the idea of "positive liberty", e.g., entitlements. These are not simply things like food stamps and health care, but also government mandates on hair dryers--which save about 12 lives a year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars; the mandated demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to build any new nuclear reactors--which are very safe and extremely cheap when the they are allowed to be pebble bed modular reactors; but nooooo, those are not allowed, even while the start-up of such companies as could build them would instantly put tens of thousands of people to work.
   Government mandates are costing the people of this nation hundreds of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, including those for bio-fuels, which as we all know by now are pushing up the cost of fuels, the cost of our food, and are not popular, not to mention that the price of biogas must be something like 24¢ less than regular before it actually becomes more fuel-efficient, because you get fewer miles-per-gallon with it.

   Negative liberty, on the other hand, is the absence of political obstacles and constraints against individual sovereignty, which the Founders sought to guarantee with the Ninth Amendment.

   The Ninth Amendment says that just because the Founders failed to name and to number all the specific rights you have, doesn't mean you don't still have them. The right to a hairdryer that won't kill you if you are stupid enough to use it near water isn't one of them.
   The Tea Party has turned out to be a very vocal group of fiscal and ethical conservatives, which could be good for America's wallets and America's disdain for corrupt politicians, who until now have mostly gotten away with their indiscretions.
   But the Tea Partiers are no more Originalist readers of the Declaration than are their Republican or Democratic counterparts, and therein lies the problem: we need Constitutional Originalists to separate the unConstitutional government from the Constitutional government, not the "big" from the "small" government, because in the end those who call for smaller, or for less, government still fail to remember the reason that a government that governs less governs best: isn't because it's fiscally smaller, it because it is further toward being unable to destroy what is so callously forgotten about the Ninth Amendment.