"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."\n\nCould someone explain this to me in simpler terms?
214809
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
515487
taken out of context, the quote's meaning is hard to dtermine with certainty.  my take is that without knowledge, people cannot "stand up" for their rights or values.\n\nin relation to bush, i guess you could say that since he has cut education spending so much, he will create a population of "empty bags" who will be easy to manipulate
662986
It means to make the blessings of liberty safe.\n\nAssuming you mean the line from the preamble, it means that liberty and all the blessings that go with it will be safe for that generation and be further protected for future generations.  That was why they ordained and established the constitution.\nThe constitution is the way that those liberties the founding fathers held most important (freedoms) would be protected from government interferings forever.
273666
The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.
671038
Yes, I think it's a big deal, and I am NOT offended to find those words on our coins.  It is one of the very few places that God is still honored in our country.  Should we invalidate the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights, because they make reference to God?  No!  This country was founded in Christianity, and although I do firmly believe in freedom from religious persecution, I think we've gone way too far on the other side... it is now the Christians who are persecuted, our prayers are not allowed, the very basic principals that this country was founded on are litigated, and all by people claiming to be offended by it... well, you know what?  In many other countries, being the "wrong" religion can get you jailed and executed.  We allow you the God-given right to disagree, but what right do you have to change  who we are?!?!  This country was founded on Christian principals, and you have the right to live here and not be a Christian (although I pray for those lost souls), but that does not mean that you have the right to interfere with my rights, either.  Keep God in all that we do, to honor our forefathers, and honor our FATHER.
215332
Well, if you read the text of most (most) of the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution, it says "no person"  rather than "no citizen".... which kind of begs the question how some conservative strict constructionalists can argue that "person" really only means "citizen"...\n\nBut I've heard a lot of people say that they don't think non-US citizens should have rights. What's even more frightening is that a lot of people I've talked to think that even US citizens shouldn't have any constitutional protections if they are SUSPECTED of being involved in terrorist activities. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept is totally out of the window. At least, according to the Bush administration's current policies (see US v. Padilla).\n\nI'm just stocking up on popcorn (and canned goods) and waiting for the fireworks to start.
59290
Al Franken may have quoted Benjamin Franklin. It's a good quote and makes a very good point. Unfortunately, the key word here is "deserve."\n\nWe're constitutionally obligated to provide safety even to those lunk-heads who would try to usurp our rights out of their own fear.\n\nAlso, "liberty" is an unalienable right and can't be "deserved."\n\nIt's a bombastic quote that can't be put into practical use.
12742
the third ammendment really isnt relavent today.. this was made clear specifically in the constitution because before the revolution.. the british did this.. today.. we have military bases. and housing specifically for american service people.. \n\nthe 9th is used all the time.. some relating issues.. right to privacy which is not specifically in the constitution.. roe vs wade ruling was based on privacy rights..(contradictory to popular belief)...
630634
The belief in racism is not illegal as this would violate the constitution. However, many racist acts are illegal.
8838
I completely agree with Franklin we should not give up the liberties he fought so valiantly for, not for any reason.\n\nNow please tell me exactly what liberties he was talking about that you are saying we are loosing?  \n\nThe liberal press in the name of the almighty $ is the group that is pushing fear in this country because you are buying it.  Supply and demand, you are demanding a artificial fear to try to drive republicans out of the majority.  The press is suppling it by the bucket.  \n\nFor you edification I've provided a link to the bill of rights.\n\nI can only assume you are arguing that somehow IV is being challenged?  \nAmendment IV\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nSome how you have assumed that unreasonable means never? Or that the place has not been described? Searches at airports have been described so you know it's going to happen, therefore your rights have not been violated.  Certainly a known terrorist calling you warrants a resonable search to the point of listening to the conversation by our anti-terrorism forces.
64776
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
352864
"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. "\n\nSelf-explanatory.
64321
As noted in his book, “The Rights Retained Retained by the People,” by Professor Barnett, Ninth Amendment analysis has proceeded in three stages . . . . . . \n\nThe first stage lasted until 1965 and during this period there were only the most glancing judicial and scholarly references to the ninth amendment, with no explicit construction of the amendment by the Supreme Court in the seven cases that represent the sum total of the Court’s pronouncements on the amendment prior to 1965.\nRoth v. United States [1957]\nWoods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. [1948]\nUnited States Pub. Workers v. Mitchell [1947]\nTennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA [1939]\nAshwander v. TVA [1936]\nScott v. Sandford [1857]\nLessee of Livingston v. Moore [1833]\n\nThe second stage began in the Griswold v. Connecticut [1965] the court held unconstitutional Connecticut statutes that criminalized the use of, or assistance in the use of, contraceptives.  While Justice Douglas wrote that the statutes violated the right of marital privacy created by the prenumbral rights emanating from the specific guarantees in the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth Amendments, it was Justice Goldberg’s concurring, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan, that catapulted the ninth into sudden respectability.  Justice Gold berg concluded that the right to marital privacy, although not expressly listed in the Constitution, is nonetheless protected by the Ninth Amendment.  \n\n(Note from Randy – In my opinion his most significant statement was, “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.”  I can just visualize the Founders hooraying Justice Goldberg.)\n\nThis case acted as the foundation for the court to further define privacy by alluding to the ninth amendment but not explaining precisely what unenumerated rights the ninth amendment might include in the cases of . . . . . \nPlanned Parenthood v. Danforth [1976]\nBuckley v. Valeo [1976]\nLubin v. Panish [1974]\n\nThe waning of the Warren court saw the beginning of the third stage and began invoking the ninth amendment to justify an expansive reading of individual rights.  Justice Black opined that the ninth amendment is a “fountain of law.”  Justice Ely “it is intended to signal the existence  of federal constitutional rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.”\n\nProfessor Barnett goes on to state, “The central question in ninth amendment interpretation has been the existence and extent of the federal rights the amendment is suppose to encompass.  The historical evidence , however, suggests that the ninth amendment is not a cornucopia.\n\n(Randy note: this becomes quite lengthy from here on so I will only mention that the focus here (Justices Black and Ely) is on the rights listed in the first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights as they are interpreted by the court as being encompassed within the 14th amendment and not rights as may be evolved from the ninth amendment.  The is a multitude of scholarly works, both pro and con, on this perspective.  I believe that it is fair to say that this is far from finality.)
110030
wth? they dont actually state the language in the constitution my dear...\n\nbut it does seem a bit odd seeing as though the whole document is written in...*ahem*...ENGLISH!\n\nand what kind of question is this? you have absolutely no grounds for this foolishness...it doesnt even makes sense...
553003
Self rightoues people has basta d the word so much and used it to supress minorities..\n\nRead this from a old definition where the slaves was supressed.\n\n(MARRIAGE - A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage)\n\nas you read, it is used to keep a group as a minority and to supress.\n\n(no it is not a union between man and woman, originally it meant combining together, as chefs use the word quite frequently in combining ingredients)\n\nany self rightoues person proclaiming to protect the institue of marriage (the word), is suppressing a minority group, building hatared, and thinking it is underminding there institute of marriage, which it is not)\n\nOnce again as this debate should not be happening, it is.\n\n(as all groups should be treated equally, as the constitution says we have the right to persue happiness)\n\nWhat brings happiness to some, only gives others the right to discriminate.\n\nI also have a dream.......
466181
You can't segregate the two, and know one should try. Nothing is more important to the citizens of this country than the Bill of Rights. However, some believe it is OK to take liberties in exchange for security, a concept that never works out for the citizens, and I disrespect people who agrees with it.
526434
It's not very interesting, I'm afraid.  The proposed amendment, which was the first of the twelve, was a technical amendment that pertained to the reapportionment of the United States House of Representatives following the census every ten years.  This amendment, which was never ratified, is technically still pending the state legislatures' approval, but it never will be.  \n\nIn any case, since the first two of the twelve originally proposed amendments were not rights issues but issues pertaining to congress, only the last 10 were ever referred to as the "Bill of Rights."