Philosophy Now Forum

Your constitution mentions the phrase "the people" a bunch of times and it's rather ambiguous.

In your 2nd amendment it says:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In your 9th amendment it says:

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

What does it mean for a right to be "retained by the people"?

Does it mean that every single individual in every state (collectively refered to as "the people") has constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms irrespective of state law.

OR

Does it mean that "the people" of any particular state can pass laws which undermine the constitutional rights of individuals living in that state?

Here's a link to educate yourself.

The Ninth Amendment
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... 0existence.

“Bork’s very public denial that any meaning of the Amendment could be discovered fueled intense academic interest in the original meaning of the text.

“In the literature that developed, much of the controversy concerned the original meaning of the phrase ‘rights . . . retained by the people.’ Since the 1980s, four rival interpretations of this phrase emerged.”


Comment:
Your topic and your interest. Unless you're one of those folks who simply doesn't have a clue, what is your interpretation, and what is the reasoning that is the basis for your interpretation? Do you have a fifth interpretation?

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 2:41 pm Here's a link to educate yourself.

The Ninth Amendment
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... 0existence.

“Bork’s very public denial that any meaning of the Amendment could be discovered fueled intense academic interest in the original meaning of the text.

“In the literature that developed, much of the controversy concerned the original meaning of the phrase ‘rights . . . retained by the people.’ Since the 1980s, four rival interpretations of this phrase emerged.”


Comment:
Your topic and your interest. Unless you're one of those folks who simply doesn't have a clue, what is your interpretation, and what is the reasoning that is the basis for your interpretation? Do you have a fifth interpretation?

So where is the education? There's four contradictory interpretations but zero input from case law/precedent.

How does SCOTUS interpret it?

- What do you think?

- I have no need to reinvent the wheels that should be turning in your noggin.

- All I did was make it easier for you, like a multiple-choice test where you all you need to do is justify one of the four interpretations in case you don’t have a fifth. Of course, you need reasons for the selection you must make, if any. And make no mistake, you must make it even if you don't own up.

- All you need do now to extend your opening is pick one of the four interpretations, or your fifth interpretation, and explain the selection. Couldn’t be easier. These questions. Oy. You have some clues. Work with them, and I might add, work sincerely if it's knowledge you seek, glasshopper.

- Speaking of that, I recently discovered a fifth of a less expensive, acceptable alternative to Patron Silver, which I selected for the reasons given and discovered after the first fifth. But not all once, of course. It took some serious study, comparison taste tests but no blind tests.