"David Voth"  wrote in message
news:398cef01.330621542@news...
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:02:01 GMT, Bob Crownfield 
> was kind enough to write:
> >> The Ninth Amendment was supposed to keep people from reading the Bill
> >> of Rights that way, but unfortunately, many courts do it anyway.
> >
> >It clearly does, but if a right is not listed somewhere, it is open to
> >argument, hence the Bill of Rights enumerating them.
>
> The Bill of Rights does not enumerate rights; it proscribes specific
> actions by the government.
>
> Making an exhaustive list of human rights would be impractical.  Read
> Steve Hix's explanation in my .sig.
>

Jewish World Review June 28, 2000 / 25 Sivan, 5760
Walter Williams

Was a Bill of Rights necessary?


AS WE CELEBRATE the Fourth of July, let's ask the question: Did the Framers
make a mistake by amending the Constitution with the Bill of Rights? Would
Americans have more liberty today had there not been a Bill of Rights?

You say: "Williams, what's wrong with you? America without the Bill of
Rights is unthinkable!" Let's look at it. After the 1787 Constitutional
Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed
Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave
reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others insistence
that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. It wasn't because
they had little concern with liberty guarantees. Quite to the contrary,
they were concerned about the loss of liberties.

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84,
"(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed
Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare
that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do?

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall
not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which
restrictions may be imposed?"

Hamilton's argument was that Congress can only do what the Constitution
specifically gives it authority to do. Powers not granted belong to the
people and the states. Another way of putting Hamilton's concern: Why have
an amendment prohibiting Congress from infringing on our right to play
hopscotch when the Constitution gives Congress no authority to infringe
upon our hopscotch rights in the first place?

Hamilton added that a Bill of Rights would "contain various exceptions to
powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable
pretext to claim more (powers) than were granted. ... (It) would furnish,
to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
Going back to our hopscotch example, those who would usurp our G-d-given
liberties might enact a law banning our playing hide-and-seek. They'd
justify their actions by claiming that nowhere in the Constitution is there
a guaranteed right to play hide-and-seek. They'd say, "hopscotch yes, but
hide-and-seek, no."

To mollify Hamilton's fears about how a Bill of Rights might be used as a
pretext to infringe on human rights, the Framers added the Ninth Amendment.
The Ninth Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain
rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

Boiled down to its basics, the Ninth Amendment says it's impossible to list
all of our G-d-given or natural rights. Just because a right is not listed
doesn't mean it can be in fringed upon or disparaged by the U.S. Congress.

Applying the Ninth Amendment to our example: Just because playing hopscotch
is listed and hide-and-seek is not doesn't mean that we don't have a right
to play hide-and-seek.

How do courts see the Ninth Amendment today? It's more than a safe bet to
say that courts, as well as lawyers, treat the Ninth Amendment with the
deepest of contempt. In fact, I believe that if any appellant's lawyer
argued Ninth Amendment protections on behalf of his client, he would be
thrown out of court, if not disbarred. That's what the Ninth Amendment has
come to mean today.

I believe we all have a right to privacy, but how do you think a Ninth
Amendment argument claiming privacy rights would fly with
information-gathering agencies like the Internal Revenue Service? Try to
assert your rights to privacy in dealing with the IRS and other government
agencies, and I'll send you cigarettes and candy while you're in jail.

      � 2000, Creators Syndicate