Of course, others will argue that the amendment was intended to limit the power of the Court and the Federal government from imposing further "rights" on the States, "left to the people" means then "left to the States." You clearly have a right to your own interpretation and the right to argue for it. My main point in my blog is that there is a logical inconsistency with interpreting rights as a limit on majority decision and seeing them as subject to majority decision in State processes. If, however, you see the main point of our Constitutional 'rights" as reserving power to the States, i.e. State rights vis a vis, Federal, then you read the amendment differently. However, many or most I think, would see the 14 Amendment took care of this. Let me hear from you lawyers. I just slept at the Holiday Inn.
In a book, "Rights Retained by the People," Barnett brings together a collection of views on the 9th Amendment. I favor Bennett Patterson's approach, as stated by Barnett:
"Bennett Patterson would allow Ninth Amendment interpretation to be an extremely dynamic force in protecting individual rights. Patterson believes our perception of rights to be constantly evolving. Accordingly, the rights retained by the people are forever being refined and distilled. The Ninth Amendment is necessary protection for these newly evolved rights. The Founders had no way to describe rights which they were incapable of recognizing but which they somehow instinctively knew existed."
The history of this amendment is fascinating, by the way.
Of course, others will argue that the amendment was intended to limit the power of the Court and the Federal government from imposing further "rights" on the States, "left to the people" means then "left to the States." You clearly have a right to your own interpretation and the right to argue for it. My main point in my blog is that there is a logical inconsistency with interpreting rights as a limit on majority decision and seeing them as subject to majority decision in State processes. If, however, you see the main point of our Constitutional 'rights" as reserving power to the States, i.e. State rights vis a vis, Federal, then you read the amendment differently. However, many or most I think, would see the 14 Amendment took care of this. Let me hear from you lawyers. I just slept at the Holiday Inn.
In a book, "Rights Retained by the People," Barnett brings together a collection of views on the 9th Amendment. I favor Bennett Patterson's approach, as stated by Barnett:
"Bennett Patterson would allow Ninth Amendment interpretation to be an extremely dynamic force in protecting individual rights. Patterson believes our perception of rights to be constantly evolving. Accordingly, the rights retained by the people are forever being refined and distilled. The Ninth Amendment is necessary protection for these newly evolved rights. The Founders had no way to describe rights which they were incapable of recognizing but which they somehow instinctively knew existed."
The history of this amendment is fascinating, by the way.
We aren't subject to the majority like we are to minority rule.