Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (USSC+)
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:56:20 -0800
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Russell Turpin
> That seems a circumlocutious way of saying that no,
> you can't think of any case where the 9th amendment
> should be applied, and that it is window dressing.
Prior to the 14th and the incorporation and the expansion of the meaning
of interstate commerce you could probably find cause to apply the 9th
against the Federal Government.
It is applying it against a State that is problematic. It says the
reserved rights belong to the States and the People, not that the SC
should judge what they are or who got what.
> John Hall writes:
> >[The 14th amendment] was specifically written to prevent Confederate
> >from asserting that freed slaves were not citizens..
> Which immediately raises the question of what it
> means to be a citizen, and what privileges and
> immunities attach to that.
There are three clauses in that sentence separated by semi-colons. I'm
reading them together, not as separate sentences. As long as a state
wasn't playing favorites I'd let them decide what citizenship meant.
> It took a long time before a mandated separation was
> viewed as not equal.
The Congress that sent the 14th to the states established a segregated
school system for DC. That observation was at the heart of Plessy, I
> >To reinforce the idea that this was quite specific..
> Now YOU are interpreting quite, um, liberally.
Of course the citizenship applies to all. I was simply talking about
the motive for putting the clause there in the first place.
> Many people don't realize how much incorporation
> undergirds what they view as their fundamental
> rights. Without that understanding of the 14th
> amendment, states are perfectly free to abridge
> speech, censor the press, and mandate religion.
An early SC decision in the 19th C stated explicitly that a State could
re-enact the Inquisition if it so chose without violating the 1st.