December 18, 2006

The attempts by liberals to twist and shape the Constitution to fit their political ideology never ceases to amaze me. During a recent discussion that touched on several topics, several very liberal women claimed they have a "constitutional right" to an abortion, even though the right is not enumerated in the Constitution, but individuals do not have the right to own a firearm because the right enumerated in the Second Amendment pertains to the militias of the several States. In other words, the unenumerated right to an abortion is constitutionally protected from government intrusion but the individual right to own a firearm is not constitutionally protected because it is not enumerated. Sorry girls you can't have it both ways.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, ruled the Constitution protected a right to privacy even though the right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. By a vote of 7-2, the Court invalidated a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives on the grounds it violated the "right to marital privacy." The Court ruled the right was found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg wrote the right to privacy could be found in the Ninth Amendment's reference to unenumerated rights:

"Since 1791 [the Ninth Amendment] has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever." [Author's note: the right to own a firearm was a basic right of the people before the Constitution was adopted by the several States in 1788].

In the infamous 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, which upheld a women's right to an abortion, the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

If a written document was the source of individual rights, then it would have to specify each and every right being created by the document. Under this rule of construction, any right not enumerated would not exist. The Ninth Amendment was a repudiation of this principle. [FN-1]

The Ninth Amendment states the people have retained unspecified rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. If the people have unidentified rights that exist independent of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then neither document can be the source of the rights. Thus, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights cannot be construed as constitutional rights because they were not created by the Amendments. Individual rights exist independent of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. [FN-2]

That being said, the Ninth Amendment makes the debate concerning the intent and wording of the Second Amendment totally meaningless. Every pre-existing right of the people, not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights was placed beyond purview of federal authority by the Ninth Amendment. Even if the Second Amendment pertained to the militias of the several States, the Ninth Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing the individual right. Why? Because the individual right existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the people have never surrendered that right to any government. The individual right to own a firearm, like the individual right to privacy, is one of the unenumerated rights retained by the people.

Irrespective of how liberals want to interpret the Second Amendment, the same Amendment that denies government the power to restrict a women's right to have an abortion restrains government from infringing my right to own a firearm.

Footnote 1: The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Footnote 2: The preamble to the Bill of Rights states the sole purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers." To accomplish this, "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, placed additional restraints on the powers of the federal government. Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments placed "constitutional prohibitions" on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from "misconstruing or abusing its powers" concerning the rights of the people.

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob

The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character: Being a Review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages.

Archives

The ·2004 Declaration of Independence

The Constitution and YOU Part 1

The Constitution and YOU Part 2

The Constitution and YOU Part 3

Even God is Engaged in Interstate Commerce

The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment

Are the Constitutions of the Several States Unconstitutional?

Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance Bill Is Unconstitutional

The Militia Clause of the Constitution Negates the "Collective Right" Interpretation of the Second Amendment

No Senator Clinton - Government is the one Squeezing Consumers

From the Another Usurpation of Power in the Name of Patriotism Department

Sunday Was "Constitution Day"

"Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment

Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade