The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is the Text of the Ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights. From
Caselaw:
Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.
The issue was discussed at length in the
Federalist papers, specifically, 84. There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
I mention this today because many a Ron Paul supporter like to claim that the candidate is a strict constitutionalist. They often fail to remember that the
9th amendment says - in a nutshell - 'simply a statement that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated.'
Many Supreme Courts Justices and candidates have tried to argue that the amendment is too vague, but if one reads the text of Federalist #84, the Founding fathers intended as such.
Just because something isn't in the Constitution, doesn't mean you have no rights to it. The Ninth Amendment is binding, and it is used to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicitly stated elsewhere in the Constitution. (
source)
So as the days and weeks roll on, remind our well meaning Ron Paul supporters that a strict constitutionalist doesn't get to pick and choose what part of the Constitution they like. Maybe Ron Paul himself should be reminded of that when he speaks out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If he is a strict constitutionalist as many proclaim, then one might be led to believe that he thinks we should return to that awkward little part of the Constitution:
Article I, Section 2 where non-whites (people of color), are counted as 3/5 of a person. The thing is, it is probably because of the 9th Amendment that allowed for passage of the 14th, 15th and 19th amendments. Just a thought.

and
Raine