The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. – The Bill of Rights
This Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the list of rights in the Constitution will not be used to deny any individual of another right. Yet, all levels of government have passed laws which restrict or prohibit many of the things that are protected by the Bill of Rights.
Their excuse for these violations is found in the findings in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that it was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states. Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten “amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments.
Did you get that?
The States are free to violate your Constitutional rights.
As a result, when the federal government is barred from violating a persons rights, they simply pressure state and local governments, who are NOT bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution, to legally violate our rights.
For example, many cities have passed unconstitutional ordinances or legislation that restrict or prohibit the assembly of a large group of people for any purpose, violating the First Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Free speech zones, areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech, have been used at a variety of political gatherings while denying First Amendment rights outside the zones.
“Your Papers, please!”
Olympia Washington lawyer Lagrand Jones was arrested on charges of trespassing and obstructing a police officer when he refused to give the officer his ID. Jones asserts it’s not a crime to refuse to provide identification to police. Jones told the Tacoma News Tribune, “I don’t have to show my papers on demand. I don’t live in that kind of world.”
Regardless of what some court may hold, It IS NOT TRUE that a demand for papers, persons, or effects can be constitutional “if a state law allows it”. The 4th amendment prohibits that activity by the government, and the 9th amendment asserts that the States do NOT have that right or privilege.
Roe v. Wade
The District Court that heard the case of Roe v. Wade ruled in favor of a “Ninth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion.” The Supreme Court in its Roe vs. Wade decision went on to deny the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of millions of babies killed in their mothers wombs every year.
Red Flag Laws
Following the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Republicans are feared to cave in on new Democrat-favored gun-control measures that include so-called “red flag” laws many believe are unconstitutional violations of due process requirements.
A red flag law is a so-called gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.
As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are enforced, vary from state to state with the specific provisions of who may petition for a risk protection order. For example, in Indiana, only law enforcement may petition for an order. In contrast, in Oregon, any person living with the person of concern may file a petition.
Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, introduced a bill, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow states to use grants to develop red flag laws and make it a federal felony under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) to possess a firearm in violation of a state red flag law. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, introduced a separate bipartisan bill that would use grants to encourage the passage of state red-flag laws. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in 2019 that he also planned to introduce legislation to encourage states to pass red flag laws.
Opponents of red flag laws argue that such legislation infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to due process of law, and object to ex parte hearings. An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present.
If we the people allow these red flag laws to continue, what’s next?
If we allow the government to violate a person’s constitutional rights on the assertion by another claiming that person is unstable, what about other rights?
We’re already seeing efforts to criminalize speech if it’s a Christian speaking out against homosexuality. It’s called “hate speech“. Is it a stretch to believe that someday people would say that because you believe in a mythical god that preaches hate, that’s proof you’re unstable and your guns should be taken away? What about your First Amendment right to speech?
What about the censorship we see now being permitted by social media giants like Google, Facebook, and YouTube? Whether it’s content that offends somebody else or content that exposes truths that conflict with the official narrative, that content is being buried or removed from the public debate.
Red Flag laws are an early step toward Social Credit Scores like we see in China. Only those deemed worthy by the State are permitted the benefits of the State and those deemed unworthy are denied those benefits.
What about your social security check? Government already denies governments and corporations access to their money if they’re declared to support terrorism. What about the Christian or Conservative that has been declared a terrorist because of his beliefs? Would the government withhold your social security benefits because you might use the money for some nefarious purpose?
I support current gun control law that prohibits guns in the hands of felons, fugitives from justice, drug users and addicts, mental defectives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged military, former U.S. citizens who renounced their citizenship, persons subject to restraining orders, and persons who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. That law should be enforced rather than adding new laws that target individuals that have NOT broken any law.
Red Flag laws clearly violate the presumption of innocence principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”). In the case of individuals posing a threat to others or themselves, there should FIRST be an opportunity for that person to defend himself BEFORE depriving him of his property, i.e. due process.
The rights of one individual now exceed that of another. The right of freedom of speech in the name of “verbal sexual harassment” (not physical harassment) is one example.
Another example is the rights of the criminal in todays judicial system which often exceed the rights of the victim and society.
While denying Christians their 1st Amendment rights and an equal place in public schools, the courts have allowed the teaching of Atheism and other religions. It has become illegal to invite a priest or any other individual representing any Christian religion to speak in public schools; but it is legal to invite a practicing witch to speak on the doctrines of the occult. It is illegal to mention God in any school or government institution, but it legal to teach and discuss doctrines of the occult. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that even the presence of the Ten Commandments in a public school was unconstitutional. The reason being: “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments; this is not a permissible objective.”