English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

2006-08-06 08:39:09 · 26 answers · asked by Wyatt Earp 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

26 answers

try a DICTIONARY

2006-08-06 08:42:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good Question!!!

Amendment IX is One of The Ten Original Amendments of the the US Constitution: The Bill of Rights. Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

This is part of the Bill of Rights, protects at least some rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It was designed to overcome the objection that enumation of a list of rights would be construed to rule out any other rights.

The challenge with this would seem to be determining what is a right and what is not. Otherwise, we create a situation where anybody who wants to do anything can claim that they have a right to do so. So I think I will do what I want, heehee.

2006-08-06 16:07:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; that the people have other unenumerated rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right of privacy has been interpreted as one of these unenumerated rights by many people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (the protection of which right the Second Amendment prohibits infringement) is also often interpreted as another of these unenumerated rights by many people. Other, pre-existing, non-enumerated rights, besides just these two, continue to exist because of the Ninth Amendment. There is little case law.

2006-08-06 15:42:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

What is the Fourth Amendment?
Most search and seizure laws are grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It also provides that arrest warrants cannot be granted without probable cause. The operative word, here, is “unreasonable,” meaning that reasonable searches are permitted if a judge believes there to be probable cause to search for evidence of a crime, or if particular circumstances make a warrantless search proper. Evidence obtained by government officials (police officers) in violation of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in a criminal prosecution - this is known as the exclusionary rule, which exist to deter police officers from obtaining evidence in an unlawful manner.

The scope and limitations of search and seizure law will be discussed below.

2006-08-06 15:47:24 · answer #4 · answered by jeb_oi812 3 · 0 0

No matter what the Constitution may say, it should not be misconstrued to prevent the rights of other people just because an item was omitted or included, while other items were added or not included.
An example would be : I have freedom of speech, but I may not call a person with a differing ethnicity a name which evokes hatred and cruelty.
Good Luck !

2006-08-06 15:54:16 · answer #5 · answered by SpongebobRoundpants 5 · 0 0

Simply put, the states created the Federal Government and are its "boss". The states created the rules for the operation of the Federal Government. That's what the Constitution is — a list of rules for how the Federal Government should operate. If there's any question about what the rules mean, who should decide? Should the Federal Government be able to interpret the rules (the Constitution) any way it wants to? Or should the "boss" decide what the rules mean?

2006-08-06 15:50:12 · answer #6 · answered by tough as hell 3 · 0 0

The basic meaning is that the stating of one right granted by the constitution can't be used as a way of denying any of the other rights which have also been granted. You can't use the Constitution to negate the Constitution.

2006-08-06 15:48:38 · answer #7 · answered by U.K.Export 6 · 0 0

It means that our constitution shall give other's the same rights that we have.
> IN PERSPECTIVE
>
> WOW...is this laying it on the line or what?
>
> The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela
> Foster and
> Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since
> 1980 doing
> interior
> design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter
> to a family
> member
> serving in Iraq....... Read it!
>
>
> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it
> or was it not
> started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores
> on September
> 11,
> 2001?
>
> Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans,
> not brutally
> murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the
> Potomac from our
> nation's capitol and in a field in
> Pennsylvania?
>
> Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die
> a horrible,
> burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
>
> And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was
> "desecrated"
> when
> an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it
> wet?
> Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
>
> I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself
> in and repents
> for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
>
> I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the
> Middle East start
> caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of
> which is a crime
> in
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he
> is sorry for
> hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed
> through his gurgling
> slashed throat.
>
> I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in
> Iraq come out
> and
> fight like men instead of disrespecting their own
> religion by hiding
> in
> mosques.
>
> I'll care when
> the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search
> of
> nirvana care about the innocent children within range
> of their
> suicide
> bombs.
>
> I'll care when the American media stops pretending
> that their First
> Amendment liberties are somehow derived from
> international law instead
> of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
>
>
> In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave
> marine roughing up
> an
> Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I
> don't care.
>
> When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi
> prisoners who have
> been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing
> incident, rest
> assured that I don't care.
>
> When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head
> when he is told
> not
> to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can
> take it to the
> bank
> that I don't care.
>
> When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran
> and a prayer mat,
> and fed "special" food that is paid for by
> my tax dollars, is
> complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled,"
> you can
> absolutely
> believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
>
> And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's
> spelled "Koran"
> and
> other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ----
> you guessed it -
> -
> - I don't care ! ! ! ! !
>
> If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all
> your e-mail
> friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people
> responsible for this
> ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all
> means hit the
> delete button.
>
> Should you choose the latter, then please don't
> complain when more
> atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in
> our great
> country.
>
> I am not deleting this, I am sending it on, but only
> after I add:
>
>
>
> --"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if
> they made a
> difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have
> that problem."
> -- Ronald
> Reagan
>
>
> I have another quote that I would like to add AND...I
> hope you
> forward
> this such as I have.
>
> "If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,
> then we will be a
> nation gone under." also by... Ronald Reagan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Remember, what ever your trials are, they will come to
> and end.
>
> P.S. God loves you!
>

2006-08-06 16:04:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It means if some were forbidden and not included, this act can not be used for diminishing your rights.

In fact, many post soviet countries have this problem. Politicians manipulate sometimes laws and programs aimed to promote human rights in order to limit someone's rights. E.g. every unemployed may select from a list of several hundred professions when he/she receives support of unemployment center for re-qualification (depending on qualification he/she already has). But a program for some minority indicates that this minority may select only from a list of ten professions, and any member of minority who applies to any employment center faces discrimination. International experts who promoted a program for minority try to do not see that and strike out such info from a report for international bodies, even when such is gathered. Hiding their own bad work.

2006-08-06 15:57:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It means that any rights already held by the people do not stop existing only because they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution.
It means that the constitution guarantees certain rights but does not remove any.

2006-08-06 15:47:11 · answer #10 · answered by Sincere Questioner 4 · 0 0

It means that the rights in the Constitution should not every deny rights people have...

2006-08-06 15:43:33 · answer #11 · answered by Love always, Kortnei 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers