What does the 9th Amendment mean?

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have at it.  I'm especially looking forward to hearing from our "strict constructionist" friends.

[The Mikado]

the bill of rights is a safeguard of the rights of the people, it is not their source. is not an exhaustive list of the rights retained by the people. if you read it in conjunction with the tenth amendment, it makes sense.

What I'm getting at is that this, put together with the Fourteenth Amendment, really belies claims that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution, that there isn't a right to marry in the Constitution, etc.

[The Mikado]

There's a clear inferred right to privacy and bodily autonomy inferred from the penumbras of the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.  Read Roe (one of the most bold and creative, and I like boldness and creativity, interpretations of the Constitutions I've ever had the pleasure of reading).  William O. Douglas was the man, unlike so many of these current Justices that think they have to be bound by Framer's intent.

[The Mikado]

There's a clear inferred right to privacy and bodily autonomy inferred from the penumbras of the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.  Read Roe (one of the most bold and creative, and I like boldness and creativity, interpretations of the Constitutions I've ever had the pleasure of reading).  William O. Douglas was the man, unlike so many of these current Justices that think they have to be bound by Framer's intent.

So you're a Scalia fan, since he believes that as well?   I like Scalia ftr.

I'm not a Scalia fan but I certainly hold him in higher regard than, say, Clarence Thomas, who views the Constitution as a totally frozen artifact from a bygone era like Morgan does.

[The Mikado]

We might as well just not have a Constitution at all, if it's going to be rendered meaningless in this way.

I believe I've said this before, but I'd be perfectly fine with this.

[The Mikado]

We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot. 

Or, you know, like the United Kingdom, which is the same way.

Seriously, though, I've always, always favored Parliamentary Democracy over the bizarre government system we got saddled with, and the only way to switch would be to trash the Constitution and start over.  Sadly, I know that'll never happen, but whenever people do trot out that line "we might as well not have a Constitution at all," it doesn't really resonate with me.  Why would I want to keep the document that enshrines our sh**ty form of government?

[The Mikado]

We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot. 

Or, you know, like the United Kingdom, which is the same way.

     Not a system I would rather like to emulate, given the tendency of politicians through the ages towards incredible abuses of power.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United Kingdom hasn't had an autocratic regime since roughly one hundred years before our Constitution was written.

William Pitt the Younger disagrees. 

Seriously, though, the guy suspended Habeas Corpus, public political meetings were banned (except those for the express purpose of petitioning Parliament, and even those were limited), dispersed armed forces throughout the countryside, and other lovely measures.  He might have just been Prime Minister, but he had some pretty autocratic power.