Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (USSC+)

Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:11:18 -0800

> From: Russell Turpin

> There's an important question to ask the
> conservative side of this issue: What is the
> purpose of the ninth amendment? When do you
> think it should apply? Can you give examples?

The 9th was introduced to avoid the precedent that things which are not
listed are denied.  It is a legal point and a philosophical position,
not an invitation for the court to assume plenary power.

That something may possibly be one of those rights is something for the
people and their representatives to fight out in the legislatures


The 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Section 2. [deleted]

Section 3. [deleted] 

Section 4. [deleted] 

Section 5. [deleted]


1) You can't pretend blacks aren't citizens.
2) All citizens are entitled to due process of law.
3) All citizens are entitled to the same protection of the laws.

It was specifically written to prevent Confederate states from asserting
that freed slaves were not citizens, were outside the law, or in
establishing a 'white law' and a 'black law'.

To reinforce the idea that this was quite specific, the deleted articles
dealt with a repudiation of Confederate debt, prevented people involved
in insurrection from holding office (in general), and provided that
Congress could reduce the representation of states that denied voting
rights to their citizens.

The 14th Amendment was rammed down the former Confederate states
throats.  I don't think either the congress that demanded that nor the
states who adopted it any way thought it would be interpreted as
"incorporating" the first 10 amendments against the states.

Had that actually been the intention, I think the Amendment would have
said so.  You would have also had a _large_ amount of argument on
exactly what that amounts too.

In most cases I can think of this incorporation isn't such a bad thing,
policy wise.