ninth

The Ninth Amendment – Arabella Moffitt

Video

Written Component

During the Constitution’s ratification process, a group emerged known as the Anti-Federalists. This group favoured a strong state government and a weak central government. The Anti-Federalist’s primary fear was that the new American Government would have too much power over states and individuals and threaten individual liberties. On the other hand, a group known as Federalists, who believed in a strong central government and a weak state government, firmly believed that the Constitution did not need the addition of a Bill of Rights. One notable Federalist, James Wilson, argued against including The Bill of Rights. Wilson insisted that adding a Bill of Rights would imply that any right that was not mentioned did not exist. Despite this, the Federalists agreed to add amendments to the Constitution to protect the rights of the people and to satisfy the demands of the Anti-Federalists. After the ratification of the Constitution on September 25h, 1789, a Federalist name James Madison proposed 12 different amendments to the Constitution to Congress, 10 of which were ratified by the states and became collectively known as the Bill of Rights.

The Ninth Amendment is commonly understood to mean that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights should not be used to conclude that American Citizens do not have any rights beyond those outlined. However, much debate is over what James Madison meant by “Rights retained by the people”. It is believed that James Madison intended that “Rights retained by the people” referred to people’s natural rights. For example, in Madison’s notes for his proposed amendments, he refers to the freedom of speech as a natural right and that the people retained it due to its standing as a natural right. On the other hand, Roger Sherman believed that “rights retained by the people” referred to people’s individual rights, which are given to them upon their entrance into society. This included acquiring property, pursuing happiness and safety, and press freedom. However, since only some of these individual rights were included in the Bill of Rights, based on the Ninth Amendment appears to have been designed to prevent others which are not included from being taken away by the government.

The legal effect of the Ninth Amendment, in its original meaning, is that it serves as a rule of construction. It tells people how not to interpret a written Bill of Rights, specifically that just because specific rights are listed or mentioned does not mean they are any more important than those not mentioned. Due to this, the Ninth Amendment is inconsistent with one of the footnotes in The United States V Carolene Products (1938). The footnote suggests that when a law goes against the rules stated in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, there is less room for assuming that the law is conditional. This opinion goes against the Ninth Amendments’ rule of construction by downplaying rights that are not explicitly included. If allowed to amend the Ninth Amendment, I would not. The vague nature of the Ninth Amendment allows for flexibility in recognition of new rights that could emerge over time, reflecting society’s evolving needs and values. Amending the language of the Ninth Amendment would hinder the flexibility that it provides.

Jared Davis – The Ninth and Tenth Amendments

Video

Written Component

The Ninth Amendment, written and framed by James Madison, is one of the most debated and ambiguous amendments to the Constitution. It states that certain rights in the Constitution do not mean that other rights do not exist. The main point of conflict revolves around identifying these additional rights. One shared interpretation is that these rights refer to the natural rights inherent from birth, as the Constitution only specifies some rights in great detail. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the amendment was crafted. During the debates between antifederalists and federalists on including a bill of rights, James Madison argued that listing specific rights would leave the government to argue that only the enumerated rights are protected. Therefore, the Ninth Amendment seeks to balance and protect both enumerated and retained rights, subject to interpretation. While the amendment has not been frequently used in cases, it has found use in both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In these cases, the court used the ninth to recognize privacy rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but considered pre-existing rights deserving protection. These examples help reinforce the amendment’s significance in countering the criticism of vague language, although the lack of explicit mention of these rights leaves room for further interpretation. The Ninth Amendment remains the most complex amendment within the Constitution, prompting us to question what new rights today may exist that should have been included in the original document.

 

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution is historically and interpretively significant. It addresses concerns over individual rights, state sovereignty, and the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Its inclusion aimed to prevent an excessive concentration of power in the federal government and respond to the demands of the states and their citizens. Commonly understood, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states’ rights and authority, ensuring a balanced power distribution between the federal government and the states. However, interpretations have diverged over time. Some argue it grants states broad powers to resist federal encroachment, while others believe it has limitations and does not grant absolute state sovereignty. The Supreme Court case of New York v. United States (1992) illustrates the debate over the Tenth Amendment. The ruling favored New York, reaffirming state sovereignty and reviving the amendment’s significance. It emphasized the amendment’s role in maintaining a balanced power distribution and protecting states from excessive federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment connects to federalism, balancing individual rights, government authority, and shared power. Its preservation of state sovereignty and protection of rights make it significant. The interpretation that grants states broad powers is more persuasive. It aligns with federalism and the amendment’s intent, preserving state autonomy and authority. Given its historical context and ongoing relevance, I would not advocate amending the Tenth Amendment. It safeguards state sovereignty and individual rights, and altering it could disrupt the balance of power between the federal government and the states, undermining the principles of federalism.

Eli Ross-Ninth & Tenth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, ratified in the Bill of Rights, were designed to ensure individual states and citizens were granted the correct balance of rights desired by Congress at the time. For the representatives at the constitutional convention, the balance of power was of utmost importance. So, the Ninth Amendment makes clear that individuals have fundamental rights in addition to ones in the Constitution.

These fundamental rights include critical things like the right to travel, vote, and the right to keep matters private. One example of context as to why the Ninth Amendment was drafted is that when the Constitution was being written, Virginia representative and future president James Madison insisted this Amendment was crucial, as it clarified rights not included in the Constitution or Bill of Rights were still important. He believed if this was not mentioned it would suggest rights in the Constitution were “superior” to “non-enumerated” rights and this would violate individual liberty, a key American ideal. 

The Supreme Court justices have debated the specific meaning of the Ninth Amendment and the word “enumeration” on occasion, but generally agree that this Amendment calls for equal protection and equal value of non-enumerated and Constitutionally-enumerated rights for individuals.  The Tenth Amendment, also designed as a power-balancing law, says that rights not specifically given to the federal government or prohibited to the states, were reserved for the states. For example, the state of Kansas has the right to control its own education system but cannot wage war against a foreign country due to laws put in place protected by the Tenth Amendment.

This law was put in place because the drafters believed too much federal power would be similar to the old English monarchy which the colonists were rebelling against, but also recognized if the states had too much power they would be almost like foreign sovereign nations and potentially could split apart. The Amendment has been debated even at the time of its ratification.

For example, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Amendment wasn’t powerful enough to be featured in the Bill of Rights whereas James Madison believed it was of equal value to the other amendments and important to include since it would avoid Congress manipulating its powers, which would have created a too-strong federal government. More recently, court cases have focused on the Tenth Amendment’s conflict with the Elastic Clause (Article 1, Section 8), which gives Congress power to pass any law related to fulfilling their Federal duties. One important case where Amendment 10 was considered was Printz v. United States (1997), where two sheriffs challenged a bill that required background checks for prospective handgun owners.

The Supreme Court ended up ruling in favor of Sheriff Printz, as the justices believed abolishing mandatory federal background checks would reaffirm the Amendment’s idea that state legislatures are not subject to Congressional direction.