If you think government abuse of illegitimate no-knock raid tactics is bad today, imagine if the robbers didn’t have to fear being shot.

Given that the troops would be quartered in a home not only to save the cost of housing them, but also to have them spy on the other occupants, I think a lot of wiretap provisions are designed to undermine the intention of the Third Amendment.

I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the Ninth Amendment was ever intended to allow courts to “create” liberties, nor to allow the government the power to “protect” the liberties thus created. To allow the government unchecked power to invent and “protect” so-called “liberties” would be to allow it unchecked power, period. If one wants to ban some form of activity, one need merely recognize others’ “right” not be have such activity practiced anywhere near them. Voila–the government can ban practically anything by inventing a “right”, even if it wouldn’t have any other legitimate basis for such a ban.

I find it hard to regard the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as providing much protection for people’s real rights, given that they are routinely ignored in the cases where they should be applied. Of course, if the government taught people to honor the Supremacy Clause, and recognize that government agents who violate the Constitution are not acting in the line of duty, and have no legitimate authority, then such amendments might mean something, but without that they’re just decoration.

2nd.

And the tenth amendment is more than just ‘federalism’, it is the crucial statement of delegated powers. The fantastic reach of the Federal government would be a fraction of itself today were the 10th amendment enforced.

Direct election of senators destroyed the entire reasoning behind a bicameral legislature: that the senate represent the states, not the voters.

Now, instead of a House and Senate arguing to serve their constituents, we have both bodies pandering to the average Joe on the street.

What rights and freedoms must we give up so that the State may better function (rule over us)? I’ve never heard of nor seen such a list.

Federalism really is important for liberty though; the ability to “vote with your feet” and move to a state that better respects individual freedom (horizontal competition between the states) could really promote liberty.

However, we won’t have meaningful federalism until:

1. The 17th Amendment is repealed.
2. The Tenth Amendment is interpreted as preventing more than “commandeering”
3. A national government of enumerated powers, as required by Art. I § 8 is taken seriously.

The Sword of Damocles hangs heavy

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

If you interpret the words “liberty” and “property” as expansively as possible, AND interpret Due Process as onerously for the government as possible, you would have a amazingly free society. (Of course, this clause applies to the state, but the 5th Amendment applies similarly to the Fed.)

For example, liberty/property shold include the right to, say, have live enertainment at your bar without a “permit” from your local government, or to eat as much frickin’ salt on our meal as you want. Imagine a constitutional right to such things. Hot to death!

They don’t use it to show that new liberties can be created, they use the to show that the bill of rights wasn’t an exaustive list of then-existing liberties

I don’t see that on your list.

I’m taking my ball and going home now.

Though I am not a Christian, this reminds me of the question posed to Jesus, “Which is the greatest commandment?” He is said to have answered with two statements, neither of which is to be found among the Ten Commandments themselves: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40, NRSV) He knew focusing on the rules to be a divisive and destructive practice, unless one first takes to heart the motivating spirit behind those rules.

Though the Constitution of the United States is “the supreme Law of the Land,” there is a far simpler and more fundamental passage in the most famous of our founding documents upon which everything in the Constitution rests:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Were our government and our people, including our courts and juries, to take this as a serious statement of intent — and not merely a historical justification for revolting against the previous government — greater liberty would follow more surely than from any law or amendment.

In fact, I’ve often said that if I could rewrite the constitution on a blank sheet of paper, the first four articles would be the text of those four amendments in the order listed. I would rewrite the right to keep and bear arms to be much less ambiguous sounding, though. And article 5 would set forth criminal penalties for government agents who violate the first four.

The tenth amendment is good, but only in the context of the greater evil of federal leviathan vs. the little leviathans on the state and local levels. Given the choice between cancers, sure I prefer the one that’s less painful, and more easily treated. But it’s still cancer.

The 14th amendment is also good, but again only in context. It tells the government that the rights afforded citizens can’t be denied based on arbitrary reasons like skin color and such. But it’s too focused on the privileges coming from government. Rights don’t come from government in the first place. If the 9th is read correctly, you never need the 14th.

You don’t get liberty unless the focus is on the primacy of individual rights.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/third_amendment_rights_group

Imagine if you had to house military personnel in peacetime?

That said, I wish the 9th and 2nd Amendments were swapped. It’s at least the second-most important of the original ten, but somehow it wound up buried at #9. In fact, maybe the 9th should have been the 1st, as it would have maybe been interpreted as having laid down all the ground rules for the subsequent amendments. Slots #6-9 are the easiest to ignore in a list of 10.

In any case, I voted for 9th and 14th.