this isnt right Q. Why has our Constitution been classed as rigid? A. The term rigid is used in opposition to flexible because the provisions are in a written document which cannot be legally changed with the same ease and in the same manner as ordinary laws. The British Constitution, which is unwritten, can, on the other hand, be changed overnight by act of Parliament. Q. Then how does it happen that the government constantly exercises powers not mentioned by the Constitution? A. Those powers simply flow from general provisions. To take a simple example, the Constitution gives to the United States the right to coin money. It would certainly follow, therefore, that the government had the right to make the design for the coinage. This is what the Supreme Court calls reasonable construction of the Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 18). Q. Does not the Constitution give us our rights and liberties? A. No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their rights and liberties before they made the Constitution. The Constitution was formed, among other purposes, to make the peoples liberties secure-- secure not only as against foreign attack but against oppression by their own government. They set specific limits upon their national government and upon the States, and reserved to themselves all powers that they did not grant. The Ninth Amendment declares: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.[6] the framers of the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment intended that no rights that they already held would be lost through omission. Law professor Charles Lund Black took a similar position, though Stimson and Black respectively acknowledged that their views differed from the modern view, and differed from the prevalent view in academic writing.[14][ In 2000, Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He said that the Ninth Amendment refers to a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law.[10] Similarly, journalist Brian Doherty has argued that the Ninth Amendment specifically roots the Constitution in a natural rights tradition that says we are born with more rights than any constitution could ever list or specify.[11] ]In 2000, Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He said that the Ninth Amendment refers to a universe of rights, possessed by the people — latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law....a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law.[10] Similarly, journalist Brian Doherty has argued that the Ninth Amendment specifically roots the Constitution in a natural rights tradition that says we are born with more rights than any constitution could ever list or specify.[11] Robert Bork, often considered an originalist, stated during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing that a judge should not apply a constitutional provision like this one if he does not know what it means; the example Bork then gave was a clause covered by an inkblot. Upon further study, Bork later ascribed a meaning to the Ninth Amendment in his book The Tempting of America. In that book, Bork subscribed to the interpretation of constitutional historian Russell Caplan, who asserted that this Amendment was meant to ensure that the federal Bill of Rights would not affect provisions in state law that restrain state governments.[12] A libertarian originalist, Randy Barnett, has argued that the Ninth Amendment requires what he calls a presumption of liberty. Barnett also argues that the Ninth Amendment prevents the government from invalidating a ruling by either a jury or lower court through strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.[12] Still others, such as Thomas B. McAffee, have argued that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated residuum of rights which the federal government was never empowered to violate.[13] 12 mins · Edited · Like Today in Judiciary Committee we voted on S.J. Res. 19: a constitutional amendment that would give Congress power to curtail Americans First Amendment right to free speech. It doesn’t take a complicated constitutional exposition to see what this proposed amendment is really about: power…giving it to sitting Members of Congress and taking it away from the American people, including, not coincidentally, any potential candidate that might like to challenge a sitting Member of Congress. As we have seen in the unfolding scandal at the IRS, there is a permanent temptation facing those in power to muzzle dissent and a permanent inclination to deceive oneself into thinking that such a temptation does not exist. This is precisely why we have a written Constitution that checks those in authority and prevents the kind of proposal I voted against today.
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:07:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015