Agreed. So why didn't the Roe Court bother to at least mention the 9th Amendment? I don't recall any such reference in the opinion. Please correct me if I am wrong. Why didn't Grisworld v. Conn. use the 9th Amend. theory or a natural rights theory rather than the ludicrous penumbras theory?
Ray P.S. Thanks for excellent linked discussion. From: Jon Roland [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:20 PM To: Raymond Kessler Cc: 'Joseph E. Olson'; 'List Firearms Reg' Subject: Re: The most polite put-down I recently read. Doesn't need to. The Ninth Amendment covers that. I discuss the issues in that case here <http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2007/09/constitutional-views-on-abort ion.html> . But even if there weren't a Ninth Amendment, fundamental rights precede and are superior to the Constitution. They don't stem from it and don't need to be mentioned in it. See Social <http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm> Contract and Constitutional Republics. Raymond Kessler wrote: If I recall, in Roe v Wade the majority never states where the right is located in the Constitution. -- Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
