Skip to main content

View Diary: State Legislators in Rhode Island and Maine Are Announcing Marijuana Legalization Bills Tomorrow (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  9th amendment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, offgrid, isabelle hayes

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In other words, the 9th amendment acknowledges that:

    "While the Constitution enumerates certain rights, there are other rights (not mentioned specifically in the Constitution) that are also retained by the American people."

    ----

    And some of these rights were later enumerated, in further Amendments, such as voting rights for women and minorities, and the rights of former slaves.

    Some other rights have yet to be enumerated, and the right to purchase alcohol was enumerated after the prohibition era.  The right to use marijuana is in the process of being set forth by the various States, and will hopefully be enumerated soon.

    •   There's no right to purchase (0+ / 0-)

      alcohol.  

      Some states remained dry until the 50's.

      Almost everyone has always agreed that alcohol is a 10th amendment issue - it's why they had to pass an amendment to ban it at the federal level.  

      It's awfully hard to see what the big difference is between cannabis and alcohol, and why one and not the other should require constitutional changes for the federal government to outlaw.

      "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

      by JesseCW on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:36:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disregard, since I read your comment below :) (0+ / 0-)

        "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

        by JesseCW on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:37:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, but this makes no sense (0+ / 0-)
        Almost everyone has always agreed that alcohol is a 10th amendment issue - it's why they had to pass an amendment to ban it at the federal level.
        Anyone who's ever 'agreed' to that hasn't known what the hell they were talking about:  if everyone agreed that it was "a 10th amendment issue, that would mean that it MUST BE HANDLED BY THE STATES SEVERALLY, and NOT by amendment to the US Constitution.

        The reason for the Prohibition amendment (the Volstead Act?) was special-interest bullying - and it should never have happened:  its corrupting influence has infected our entire process (viz. 'Citizens United').

        "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

        by chmood on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:37:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ????? (0+ / 0-)

          That's why we passed the 18th amendment.

          Virtually everyone at the time believed Congress did not have the power to prohibit liquor without a new amendment specifically giving them that power.

          That's why it was passed.  

          THEN Congress passed the Volstead Act, which was the law * exercising* what was seen as a new power.

          How does that not make sense to you?  Prior to the 18th, it WAS handled by the states severally. Kansas went so far as to ban alcohol in its constitution in 1881.  More than a dozen states were completely dry already when the 18th passed.

          "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

          by JesseCW on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 01:53:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  So you're saying the 9th is meaningless? (0+ / 0-)

      That if a right is NOT enumerated IN THE CONSTITUTION then we don't have it?  Unless we're willing to spend blood over the course of generations in a never-ending piecemeal struggle?

      That the Tenth supercedes the Ninth (based on what logic, I'd LOVE to know), and it's okay for the States to deny and disparage any rights they like, and that THAT over-rides the guarantee of the Ninth?  Even if it leads to the disappearance of rights (ie, the right to privacy, which Robt. Bork famously could not find)?

      You DO realize, don't you, that the Bill of Rights was drawn up because the Constitution would never have been ratified otherwise?  That when they were done with it, THE SPECIFIC REMAINING MAJOR OBJECTION to ratification was that the enshrinement of certain rights would inevitably lead to the loss of any rights NOT so enshrined?  And so they added the Ninth and the Tenth, in order of precedence, in an effort to assuage the very lively concerns of the time and get the thing ratified?

      You seem to be trying to justify the Anti-Federalists' alarm.  Or maybe you feel that the Govt. should be able to ride over what it wants to ignore unless the populace rises up to force the issue, like in the Civil War?

      "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" - Dick Cheney

      by chmood on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:29:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (56)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Elections (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Education (17)
  • GOP (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Economy (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site