hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution
I have been reading an interesting article about The Inescapable Federalism of the Ninth Amendment which asserts that the Ninth's rights retained by the people are primarily States' rights. As I understand it, an example of these retained rights is the right of each State to pass gun control laws. Yet this federal view also embraces the individual RKBA as a right retained by the people. It may seem like a conflicting construction, to read the Ninth's retained rights to regard both the collective right to pass gun laws and also the individual right to keep and bear arms, but from the federal perspective, there is no conflict.
While the libertarian view emphasizes the Ninth Amendment as a declaration of unenumerated individual rights, the federal view emphasizes the Ninth Amendment as a declaration of limits upon federal powers. The amendment is construed to mean that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed so as to increase federal powers. Even though the Ninth Amendment doesn't say anything about federal powers, a declaration of rights against the federal government is a declaration of limits upon federal powers (rights against the feds and limits upon the feds are two sides of a coin).
From this federal perspective, the Ninth Amendment means that the declaration of a right (e.g. Second Amendment) shall not be construed so as to increase federal powers over the RKBA, whether a power over our personal arms, or a power over our states' gun laws, or over militia, or anything else having to do with the RKBA. Construing the Ninth Amendment's rights retained by the people to embrace both individual and collective rights does not create a conflict, because the intent is to keep the federal power from growing out of bounds in any manner, regardless of which of our rights are being trampled.
-Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution
I have been reading an interesting article about The Inescapable Federalism of the Ninth Amendment which asserts that the Ninth's rights retained by the people are primarily States' rights. As I understand it, an example of these retained rights is the right of each State to pass gun control laws. Yet this federal view also embraces the individual RKBA as a right retained by the people. It may seem like a conflicting construction, to read the Ninth's retained rights to regard both the collective right to pass gun laws and also the individual right to keep and bear arms, but from the federal perspective, there is no conflict.
While the libertarian view emphasizes the Ninth Amendment as a declaration of unenumerated individual rights, the federal view emphasizes the Ninth Amendment as a declaration of limits upon federal powers. The amendment is construed to mean that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed so as to increase federal powers. Even though the Ninth Amendment doesn't say anything about federal powers, a declaration of rights against the federal government is a declaration of limits upon federal powers (rights against the feds and limits upon the feds are two sides of a coin).
From this federal perspective, the Ninth Amendment means that the declaration of a right (e.g. Second Amendment) shall not be construed so as to increase federal powers over the RKBA, whether a power over our personal arms, or a power over our states' gun laws, or over militia, or anything else having to do with the RKBA. Construing the Ninth Amendment's rights retained by the people to embrace both individual and collective rights does not create a conflict, because the intent is to keep the federal power from growing out of bounds in any manner, regardless of which of our rights are being trampled.