From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 12:13:18 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker writes
> (Russell Blackford <rblackford@hotmail.com>):
>
> > Yes, this is the correct analysis. Whether such individual
> > rights [such as a right to birth control] really can be read
> > into the US constitution is another thing...
>
> What's there to debate? The ninth and tenth amendments are
> plain, ordinary English. What part of "shall not be
> construed" isn't clear?
The ninth is a very short amendment, saying,
The enumeration within the Constitution shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.
On your very simple and clear reading "the ordinary
English" would appear to dictate that towns could not
even pass prohibitions against spitting on the sidewalk.
Clearly, that is not what was meant or intended in any
way. It would never have occurred to any usual reader
of the constitution that this forbade ordinances against
public nudity or the running of businesses on Sunday.
This was clearly meant as a limit on *federal* power,
the new government that was being created.
However, in your next post, you relent a little:
> I am perhaps willing to concede that it makes sense
> for a larger community to do things like set standards
> of commerce, or regulate behavior /among/ its citizens.
> But those powers which it makes sense for people to
> delegate to their community... are a very limited set,
> and cannot possibly include personal intimate behaviors
> that are private and individual by their very nature.
It is new to me, (showing what a great constitutional
scholar I am), and would possibly have been new to the
authors this fine distinction. Very few acts have no
consequences for a district or community. Certainly
"conspiring" with a doctor to kill a fetus (or failing
to appear in public properly dressed) have clear effects
on a community. Deep traditions concerning marriage,
procreation, birthing, the treatment of one's children,
and so on and on, are surely involved. So the questions
are quite intricate.
What is clear and foremost is where the power should lie,
because power by its very nature---the use of force, after
all---is so critical. It comes down to, as you have written,
"the powers which it makes sense for a people to delegate
to their community". Today the stark fact is that there
is too much government power, too much however you look at
it, either economically or socially. The relaxation of
such power at the highest level---the federal government---
is what is most strongly called for at this time.
Again, by no means do I wish for individual state governments,
nor local governments, to thereby actually *enact* unnecessary
infringements on liberty---and I see abortion as one of those,
because it's really not their business to get involved in a
private relationship between a woman, her family, and their
physicians. But in getting government to "butt out", I want
the highest levels out first.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 12:09:53 MST