Originally Posted by majorspark
The 10th leaves all powers not specifically enumerated by the constitution to the federal government in the hands of the states and the people (local government). It gives mayor Bloomberg and his city council the power to ban certain beverages of a specific size within their local jurisdiction if they so choose. The feds possess no such power.
As for the 9th its purpose is to proclaim that the peoples rights are unlimited. The argument against enumerating rights was that the central government would seek to limit them to just those enumerated rights. That was the fear. The 9th assured the feds did not have the authority to limit them in any way. The states and the people were given the authority.
In other words the enumerated right of the individual to possess arms for protection is no less than the non enumerated right of the individual to possess health insurance for personal protection.
Government that protects your rights is the guarantee the founders envisioned. Liberty. Government that provides for your rights. Dependency.
it says some
of those things. you are correct. but it is also a balance to the tenth amendment and the final obstacle to passage of the constitution. antis wouldn't do it without the bill. feds wouldn't do the bill without the tenth amendment. antis wouldn't do that without the ninth.
committees are like that.
our early history is replete such compromises between the north and the south to maintain the union. consider the missouri compromise, or the compromise of 1950 as fine examples.
here's the description to a fine masters thesis by gary garrison @ miami in oxford... and then a link in case you want to obtain the real thing through ohiolink (a very cool resource). or you can ask any number of living members of the bar on this forum.
btw.. historians won't pass by making stuff up until they are going for at least their doctorate.
This thesis examines the Ninth Amendment as a compromise between Federalists and Anti-Federalists on two founding era discourses. The first discourse concerned rights and how to protect them. Anti-Federalists wanted a bill of rights included in the Constitution whereas Federalists feared such a bill would be incomplete and allow future tyrants to argue that rights not expressly enumerated therein were not to have Constitutional protection. The second discourse concerned the role of democracy in the new republic. Federalists were alarmed by state legislation which violated minority rights and Anti-Federalists were equally concerned that a national government would violate minority rights at the state level. This Thesis argues that the Ninth Amendment resolved these discourses by specifying that there are rights outside the Constitution which merit legal protection and by empowering the federal courts to strike down democratically passed legislation which violated minority rights.