-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Number 9
Author: Raine
Date: 01/12/2012 14:04:50
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
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
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 01/12/2012 14:15:46
wickedpam on 01/12/2012 14:15:46
Morning 
I find myself become more annoyed with the Paul supportors as the days go on, they seem to be a short sighted group
I find myself become more annoyed with the Paul supportors as the days go on, they seem to be a short sighted group
Comment by 
TriSec on 01/12/2012 14:22:37
TriSec on 01/12/2012 14:22:37
As the token Libertarian around these parts (remrof), I do state for the record that many of the papers used as source material during the days of "Libertarian Saturday" often came from the Ron Paul camp.
However, I consider myself more sensible about it. At least when I peeled off the onion layers and saw what was deeper inside, I went "GAH!" and stopped reading him so much.
(I'm not picking up any of my old libertarian materials anymore...the Bob Barr Destruction, circa 2008, kinda ruined any hope the party once had.)
However, I consider myself more sensible about it. At least when I peeled off the onion layers and saw what was deeper inside, I went "GAH!" and stopped reading him so much.
(I'm not picking up any of my old libertarian materials anymore...the Bob Barr Destruction, circa 2008, kinda ruined any hope the party once had.)
Comment by 
Raine on 01/12/2012 14:32:22
I don't think many people knew at the time about those papers and Lew Rockwell's influence on them.
I ask this -- since when did Libertarianism become about strict constitutionalism -- and when did THAT become Rayndism? I think the entire culture of the politics of it has become a muddied mess of noncompliance to anything that doesn't fit the narrative a person desires to have. Some of these people -- many of the Paul supporters remind me of the loudest Second amendment rights gun supporters.
They are so inflexible that they refuse to acknowledge the flaw of their stances.
Raine on 01/12/2012 14:32:22
Quote by TriSec:
As the token Libertarian around these parts (remrof), I do state for the record that many of the papers used as source material during the days of "Libertarian Saturday" often came from the Ron Paul camp.
However, I consider myself more sensible about it. At least when I peeled off the onion layers and saw what was deeper inside, I went "GAH!" and stopped reading him so much.
(I'm not picking up any of my old libertarian materials anymore...the Bob Barr Destruction, circa 2008, kinda ruined any hope the party once had.)
I ask this -- since when did Libertarianism become about strict constitutionalism -- and when did THAT become Rayndism? I think the entire culture of the politics of it has become a muddied mess of noncompliance to anything that doesn't fit the narrative a person desires to have. Some of these people -- many of the Paul supporters remind me of the loudest Second amendment rights gun supporters.
They are so inflexible that they refuse to acknowledge the flaw of their stances.
Comment by Raine on 01/12/2012 14:34:35
Raine on 01/12/2012 14:34:35
Let me put it this way -- when did libertarianism become anarchy?
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 14:37:13
TriSec on 01/12/2012 14:37:13
Hard to say...theoretically, at lest...the concept makes a whole lot of sense. But like many theories, I suppose it just doesn't translate well to the real world.
There was a real groundswell of support circa 2004-2007 or so, but once an "establishment" republican in Bob Barr (R-GA) got the nomination, I think it alienated a lot of longtime party faithful, and in turn the whole movement was abandoned to the extremists.
There was a real groundswell of support circa 2004-2007 or so, but once an "establishment" republican in Bob Barr (R-GA) got the nomination, I think it alienated a lot of longtime party faithful, and in turn the whole movement was abandoned to the extremists.
Comment by 
BobR on 01/12/2012 14:41:22
BobR on 01/12/2012 14:41:22
I think comparing the current "Libertarians as strict constitutionalists" to the "Gun nuts as strict 2nd Amendmentists" is a very good simile. My limited knowledge of the Libertarian ideal isn't necessary "strict constitutionalism".
In fact - that phrase is one of those that is VERY open to interpretation.
In fact - that phrase is one of those that is VERY open to interpretation.
Comment by 
velveeta jones on 01/12/2012 14:46:58
velveeta jones on 01/12/2012 14:46:58
Hey, good morning!
What morning news show do ya'll watch? I soooo hate GMA and Morning Joe. Thankfully CBS has a new show that we're trying out. Has actual news, very little fluff pieces, called CBS Morning. Charlie Rose is one of the hosts.
What morning news show do ya'll watch? I soooo hate GMA and Morning Joe. Thankfully CBS has a new show that we're trying out. Has actual news, very little fluff pieces, called CBS Morning. Charlie Rose is one of the hosts.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 01/12/2012 14:51:33
Scoopster on 01/12/2012 14:51:33
Mornin' all! 
Morning news shows? I watch the local Sunrise show for an hour while I'm waking up & getting ready for work, that's about it.
Oh yeah, I've also started watching MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes on Saturday mornings. Great show!
Morning news shows? I watch the local Sunrise show for an hour while I'm waking up & getting ready for work, that's about it.
Oh yeah, I've also started watching MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes on Saturday mornings. Great show!
Comment by wickedpam on 01/12/2012 14:56:01
none - I think when I was able to watch tv in the morning I choose Buffy over the talking heads
wickedpam on 01/12/2012 14:56:01
Quote by velveeta jones:
Hey, good morning!
What morning news show do ya'll watch? I soooo hate GMA and Morning Joe. Thankfully CBS has a new show that we're trying out. Has actual news, very little fluff pieces, called CBS Morning. Charlie Rose is one of the hosts.
none - I think when I was able to watch tv in the morning I choose Buffy over the talking heads
Comment by Raine on 01/12/2012 14:57:03
I've been hearing some really good buzz about the new CBS morning show.
Generally the only morning show I watch is CBS Sunday morning -- it's like afine elegant healthy brunch for my brain.
Raine on 01/12/2012 14:57:03
Quote by velveeta jones:
Hey, good morning!
What morning news show do ya'll watch? I soooo hate GMA and Morning Joe. Thankfully CBS has a new show that we're trying out. Has actual news, very little fluff pieces, called CBS Morning. Charlie Rose is one of the hosts.
I've been hearing some really good buzz about the new CBS morning show.
Generally the only morning show I watch is CBS Sunday morning -- it's like afine elegant healthy brunch for my brain.
Comment by Scoopster on 01/12/2012 15:03:28
Scoopster on 01/12/2012 15:03:28
Oh yeah.. why the HELL did Christiane Amanpour get replaced on This Week?! She was doing a MUCH better job than Stephanopolous.
Comment by wickedpam on 01/12/2012 15:07:42
wickedpam on 01/12/2012 15:07:42
Its a friggin' radio show - what are they supposed to solve?
Comment by Raine on 01/12/2012 15:11:48
Exactly.
Sheesh. cause you know, Rush Limbaugh has solved so many things...
Raine on 01/12/2012 15:11:48
Quote by wickedpam:
Its a friggin' radio show - what are they supposed to solve?
Sheesh. cause you know, Rush Limbaugh has solved so many things...
Comment by Raine on 01/12/2012 15:12:49
WHAT? He's back to being a host on that show?
The few times I did peruse over there -- I can say I really liked her.
Raine on 01/12/2012 15:12:49
Quote by Scoopster:
Oh yeah.. why the HELL did Christiane Amanpour get replaced on This Week?! She was doing a MUCH better job than Stephanopolous.
WHAT? He's back to being a host on that show?
The few times I did peruse over there -- I can say I really liked her.
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:17:07
TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:17:07
I, for one, am highly amused that Herman Goering and Rush Limbaugh share a birthday. (Today.)
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:50:33
TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:50:33
Ya know, it's a curious thing. Now that I've given my notice, my EDI expertise is suddenly "in demand" here. I have a couple of testing projects and a connectivity issue that they want me to see if I can resolve before I leave.
Of course, now I don't have to worry about running rings around my supervisor...I may just flex those muscles a touch and go out with a bang.
Of course, now I don't have to worry about running rings around my supervisor...I may just flex those muscles a touch and go out with a bang.
Comment by Raine on 01/12/2012 15:50:53
Raine on 01/12/2012 15:50:53
I put this together last week, and I want to repost it again. I think it is that important for people who support Ron Paul as a strict antiwar constitutionalist.
I am tempted to make this a self standing blog past after reading this from Bob Cesca. As I posted on my FB page, and with Tri's comment below, I think it is fair to say Ron Paul is like libertarianism itself -- it looks good on paper -- but not in practical application to the real world.
His words on the campaign trail and the ones his supporters claim help to prove this idea. Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan.
I am tempted to make this a self standing blog past after reading this from Bob Cesca. As I posted on my FB page, and with Tri's comment below, I think it is fair to say Ron Paul is like libertarianism itself -- it looks good on paper -- but not in practical application to the real world.
His words on the campaign trail and the ones his supporters claim help to prove this idea. Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan.
Just as a crazy aside, for those that think Ron Paul is anti war? He's not. To whit I present to you:This is from 2007. Ron Paul introduced this legislation. I bold faced the information above. IT should be made very clear in my opinion that there is a difference between anti war and privatizing war like activities. The latter, IMO under a Ron Paul president would most likely be without regulations. I would still like to see how this is paid for.Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for any planned similar acts or acts of war against the United States in the future.
States that no letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued without the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President determines sufficient to ensure the letter's execution.
Also in 2007, he voted against a date for the Iraq war pullout. From the NYT, March, 2007.This is the roll call on that vote. You will note, Paul is listed under the Nays.Two Republicans voted for the measure: Representative Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, a former Marine Corps officer who was wounded in Vietnam, and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, who called for a withdrawal nearly two years ago.
But the rest of the Republican caucus objected to the legislation on substance and principle. Several lawmakers derided the total of nearly $24 billion in domestic spending  benefiting spinach growers and shrimp fishermen and peanut storage, among others  that Democrats put into the bill to make it more palatable to its members.
So we can talk about Paul's issue with foriegn aid -- but I ask you -- WHY do people keep saying he is the only antiwar candidate? He is not. He is for privatizing war.
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:57:33
TriSec on 01/12/2012 15:57:33
A letter of Marque might have made historical sense; throughout much of our history, we didn't have a large standing navy or army; essentially deputizing civilians to help out in times of war may have made sense in the 17th century.
Not so much now; while the Piraticals among us love the idea, it should remain what it is, a quaint historical legal relic like so many others that were never repealed.
-
Not so much now; while the Piraticals among us love the idea, it should remain what it is, a quaint historical legal relic like so many others that were never repealed.
-
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 01/12/2012 16:25:25
I so want letters of marque and reprisal. Seriously. In a fancy scroll.
Mondobubba on 01/12/2012 16:25:25
Quote by TriSec:
A letter of Marque might have made historical sense; throughout much of our history, we didn't have a large standing navy or army; essentially deputizing civilians to help out in times of war may have made sense in the 17th century.
Not so much now; while the Piraticals among us love the idea, it should remain what it is, a quaint historical legal relic like so many others that were never repealed.
-
I so want letters of marque and reprisal. Seriously. In a fancy scroll.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 01/12/2012 16:29:43
Will in Chicago on 01/12/2012 16:29:43
Good morning, bloggers!! Excellent blog, Raine!!
I think that Libertarianism appeals to those who saw the past as a simpler time. Ironically, I think that Ron Paul would have argued for a simpler time if he lived 200 years ago.
We have our first significant snow fall of the season today -- perhaps 5 to 7 inches of snow coming.
I think that Libertarianism appeals to those who saw the past as a simpler time. Ironically, I think that Ron Paul would have argued for a simpler time if he lived 200 years ago.
We have our first significant snow fall of the season today -- perhaps 5 to 7 inches of snow coming.
Comment by 
livingonli on 01/12/2012 17:56:36
livingonli on 01/12/2012 17:56:36
Good day everyone. It seems like the Paul cult and the Ayn Rand cult both seem to make the Libertarian more like the Thom Hartmann example of the Republican who wants to smoke dope and get laid.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/12/2012 18:16:10
Mondobubba on 01/12/2012 18:16:10
Comment by Scoopster on 01/12/2012 18:31:51
Scoopster on 01/12/2012 18:31:51
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 18:34:56
TriSec on 01/12/2012 18:34:56
Back from City Hall. I have dissolved the "Elect your Loyal TriSec!" committee.
Going to move in another direction, methinks. (Although I still have my eye on my Ward Councilor's seat, should he opt to retire.)
Going to move in another direction, methinks. (Although I still have my eye on my Ward Councilor's seat, should he opt to retire.)
Comment by TriSec on 01/12/2012 20:00:03
TriSec on 01/12/2012 20:00:03
I've killed it!
Ohhhh, everything I touch turns into a disaster!
Ohhhh, everything I touch turns into a disaster!
Comment by BobR on 01/12/2012 20:31:43
:waves arms over fancy blog... moves to 4F blog... waves arms:
"Hark the herald angels sing..."
BobR on 01/12/2012 20:31:43
Quote by TriSec:
I've killed it!
Ohhhh, everything I touch turns into a disaster!
:waves arms over fancy blog... moves to 4F blog... waves arms:
"Hark the herald angels sing..."
Comment by Raine on 01/13/2012 02:03:49
Sorry I was busy writing this afternoon.
oh, and napping.
Raine on 01/13/2012 02:03:49
Quote by BobR:Quote by TriSec:
I've killed it!
Ohhhh, everything I touch turns into a disaster!
:waves arms over fancy blog... moves to 4F blog... waves arms:
"Hark the herald angels sing..."
Sorry I was busy writing this afternoon.
oh, and napping.
Comment by livingonli on 01/13/2012 02:08:07
I'm working the Ranger game although the latest winning streak might be stopped as they are down 1-0 against the Sens in the 3rd period.
livingonli on 01/13/2012 02:08:07
Quote by Raine:Quote by BobR:Quote by TriSec:
I've killed it!
Ohhhh, everything I touch turns into a disaster!
:waves arms over fancy blog... moves to 4F blog... waves arms:
"Hark the herald angels sing..."
Sorry I was busy writing this afternoon.
oh, and napping.
I'm working the Ranger game although the latest winning streak might be stopped as they are down 1-0 against the Sens in the 3rd period.
Comment by Raine on 01/13/2012 02:14:42
Raine on 01/13/2012 02:14:42
OH MITT: 
Comment by livingonli on 01/13/2012 02:41:45
livingonli on 01/13/2012 02:41:45
Comment by TriSec on 01/13/2012 03:06:37
TriSec on 01/13/2012 03:06:37
Hmm, so Mitt is wet-leasing a 737 at 7k per hour, eh?
Comment by Raine on 01/13/2012 03:40:39
You think the ShoeShiner is part of the lease package?
Raine on 01/13/2012 03:40:39
Quote by TriSec:
Hmm, so Mitt is wet-leasing a 737 at 7k per hour, eh?
You think the ShoeShiner is part of the lease package?