NationStates Jolt Archive

Is anyone else worried that this part of the Constitution seems to be largely ignored by many Americans? There are influential people who say the Constitution ought to be construed to say only what it says, narrowly read and based on what the provisions meant at the time they were passed. Probably the most influential and most vocal of the camp is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. He has said that because there is no "Right to Privacy" written into the Constitution than there is no protected right to privacy. But IX says that not all of the rights retained by the people are ennumerated in the Constitution, and it should not be construed that way. This is something that has always bothered me, so I was just curious to see what other people think on the subject.

Is anyone else worried that this part of the Constitution seems to be largely ignored by many Americans? There are influential people who say the Constitution ought to be construed to say only what it says, narrowly read and based on what the provisions meant at the time they were passed. Probably the most influential and most vocal of the camp is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. He has said that because there is no "Right to Privacy" written into the Constitution than there is no protected right to privacy. But IX says that not all of the rights retained by the people are ennumerated in the Constitution, and it should not be construed that way. This is something that has always bothered me, so I was just curious to see what other people think on the subject.
Well Done. Too many people on both sides forget this one... but not Libertarians!

Is anyone else worried that this part of the Constitution seems to be largely ignored by many Americans? There are influential people who say the Constitution ought to be construed to say only what it says, narrowly read and based on what the provisions meant at the time they were passed. Probably the most influential and most vocal of the camp is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. He has said that because there is no "Right to Privacy" written into the Constitution than there is no protected right to privacy. But IX says that not all of the rights retained by the people are ennumerated in the Constitution, and it should not be construed that way. This is something that has always bothered me, so I was just curious to see what other people think on the subject.


The *implied* right to privacy in the US Constitution is the basis for Roe v.Wade, partially. It is also the cornerstone of the current gay rights debate over sodomy laws--

The Ninth Amendment is the *catch-all* amendment in many ways. It was the way that the drafters left room for expansion and revision as the country developed. I think Scalia is waaaaaaay out in left field on this one, and I am reasonably positive that the Supreme Court would find it difficult to backslide on any issues decided on the *right to privacy*

You can take my right to privacy when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Most Supreme Court Justices hate writing decisions based on the 9th Amendment because it's so full of abstraction that it's practically undefinable. You can fit almost anything in there, and as a result, any arguments basically come down to a popularity vote on the issue rather than on some defined point of law. Justices hate that, because they don't want to be on the hook later for some decision where popular opinion has changed on them, so they avoid the 9th like the plague, except in concert with other arguments (the penumbra argument over privacy, for instance).

And on a side note, wouldn't Scalia be wayyyy out in right field? :D

So I guess Scalia wouldn't mind me peeking in on him or his wife while she takes a shower. Maybe taking a few snapshots and posting them on the internet. I'm sure the rest of the world would mind seeing it, but that's not my point.

And on a side note, wouldn't Scalia be wayyyy out in right field? :D
I would hope so, but one never knows with American politics. Even the lefties are pretty right wing.

Oh, absolutely, the 9th alone isn't enough to say "this is fundamental" whatever the right in question. But the way Scalia reads the Constitution, and the way Alito seems to, and the way Bush wishes everyone would, seems to effectively render 9 inoperative, even though the Court itself has said there is not even a word in the Constitution that does not function (of course, they then rendered part of the 14th more or less inoperative, but that was probably a good thing anyway)