What does the 9th Amendment mean?

[Free Palestine]

The Tenth Amendment is still in the Constitution, you know.

The idea that the Ninth Amendment is a blank check, allowing the government to do whatever it wants, is absurd.  But that doesn't really matter, since of course the Constitution is just a "lump of clay" for us to morph into what those in power we want.  If we're going to buy that argument, we might as well just not have a Constitution at all.

I could bring up some quotes and junk during the ratification, but it wouldn't matter since they're all just "commentators" we don't have to listen to, according to some literary theory best suited for a poem or Moby Dick, rather than the founding document of our nation.  That idea is so absurd, and so dangerous to liberty, because it essentially rules the Constitution null and void.

[Free Palestine]

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.

Ah, you mean one of those justices who have no place anywhere near a federal court?

[Free Palestine]

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 Constitution is a set of laws setting out the framework of our nation, restricting the power of the federal government, and ensuring that the rights of the people are preserved.  The only reasonable way to interpret it is through a reading of the text and why it was put there.  To "re-interpret" it with no regard to historical or textual fact is dangerous, and it usurps the very constitutional framework of our nation.

We might as well just not have a Constitution at all, if it's going to be rendered meaningless in this way.  We could be like the Roman Republic, and rely solely on precedent and whatnot.  And then I can laugh when our nation goes the way of the Roman Republic...

[Free Palestine]

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.

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that having an informal constitution isn't the end of the world.

Well as PiT pointed out, it creates a system that is prone to abuses of power.