Posted: 8/27/2008 9:00:46 PM EDT
|
Simple point... It exists... It has NEVER been used... Even in a case that the court was OBVIOUSLY reaching to 'declare a new right because we think there should be one' - like Roe v Wade - they have completely avoided the 9th... Just an observation.... |
The 10th has actually been used... It's just not used to the extreme extent that some of the neo-confederate types would like... And as a matter of practice, 'the people' never get any 10th amendment powers because the states take them all first... |
| I think, mostly, because it's redundant because "power" (Amendment 10) has been forever equated to "right" as in Amendment 9. And because there is zero guidance for the Court on the 9th and there are other well-precedented methods to achieving the same ends as Amendment 9: Article I, Sections 8 and 9 and the 10th Amendment being the most obvious. |
But Dave's right: they have made 10th Amendment rulings. A bunch, actually. They just went out of favor after the Second New Deal. Rehnquist's Court brought it back as a legitimate challenge and it is resurgent. |
|
The SCOTUS doesn't take all that many cases a year, and there aren't that many where the 9th Amendment is cited that get that far. It more or less means that just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the BoR, that it does not exist. The enumerated are not the only rights. right to Privacy in Roe v Wade is probably the one we most know about. |