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.
Tags: amendment, arabella, arabella-moffitt, moffitt, ninth, the, the-ninth-amendment, the-ninth-amendment-arabella-moffitt