The Forgotten Amendment....

As we work to stem the continuing erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, we hear all manner of reference to the First and Second Amendments, predominately.  The ground covered in those amendments to the Constitution seems to be where most of the war is taking place these days.


But as important as those amendments are, along with the other six amendments that initially comprised the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment is the article that explicitly protects our rights from infringement by the federal government.


The Ninth Amendment reads as follows: 

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

The rights granted to the general (federal) government comprised a very limited, discrete package of powers.  James Madison put it this way:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

Simply stated, Madison argued that, contrary to the political doctrine we see exercised by the federal government today, the only powers granted to the general government were those that were explicitly granted.  The assumption underlying the Ninth Amendment, therefore, is that all other powers, even those not explicitly stated, were reserved to THE PEOPLE.  In his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, during which he also addressed objections to the creation of such a document, Madison emphasized the idea of "the great residuum" of powers that were reserved to the People:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people;"

As we continue the fight to bring the federal government back into line with the principles stated in the Constitution, one thought stands out from the rest: if at any time the powers of the federal government come into conflict with the rights of the people, the Ninth Amendment declares which set of powers is to take preeminence - and those powers don't belong to the federal government.

Gov. Snyder's Belief That More Immigration Will Make Michigan Prosperous Again....

Michigan's Gov. Snyder made a speech in Grand Rapids, MI, on March 8, 2012, in which he stated, yet again, his belief that immigration is the key to turning Michigan around, essentially stating that Michigan residents do not possess the skills needed to get the job done.

If by immigration he means that process by which people become productive legal residents and citizens of this country via the processes that have been established by our laws, then by all means, Welcome!

If by immigration he means that process by which people sneak across our borders or deliberately stay in the country long after their visas expire, having children who automatically acquire American citizenship, thus providing a safeguard against being deported and making their children (and, by extension, the parents) eligible for all manner of public assistance, then, Governor, you need to seriously re-consider who you are in Lansing to represent. Our state spends nearly $1 BILLION ($928,800,000) annually providing assistance to the families of illegals. But instead of doing something about that, you placed the blame for Michigan's financial problems on teachers and other public employees, cutting the wages and benefits of TAXPAYERS - people who truly contribute to the income of this state - while making the case to increase access to Michigan jobs by "immigrants."

Mr. Governor, you are in office to represent the needs of the CITIZENS and LEGAL RESIDENTS of this state - not to make a case for yet another back door amnesty program. I am aware that our immigration system is in need of work, but that hardly serves as justification to simply throw open the door to people who are taking jobs that are needed by out-of-work citizens and legal residents of this state. Those jobs in the agricultural and hospitality industries used to be the staples of American high school and college students. And don't get me started on the jobs in the construction and other industries that are now being filled by illegals instead of citizens - high paying jobs, not the minimal wage jobs that the open border crowd always like to point to. These are all jobs that can, should and would be filled by CITIZENS if they didn't have to deal with an employment deck that is stacked in favor of illegals.

A number of bills have been submitted that would A) severely penalize employers who hire illegals, B) require verification of legal residency for employment and business transactions, and (C) make the practice of using ITINs or matricula consular as substitutes for social security numbers or passports a state felony. THOSE are the initiatives you need to be supporting - not paving the way for yet another round of amnesties.

"Federal Judge Declares Maryland's Concealed Carry Requirement Unconstitutional..."

That was the headline of an article posted on guns.com today.  A federal judge found Maryland's requirement that an applicant for a concealed carry license provide a "good and substantial reason" to carry unconstitutional.  With this ruling in mind, I sent the following letter to my Michigan state legislators:

Gentlemen,

I have contacted your offices several times regarding our Second Amendment right to carry firearms with reference to businesses and places of public accommodation, both for employees and customers/clients.  While the recent federal ruling does not specifically address this issue, the judge's opinion includes statements that have direct bearing on it.
First, that this is a civil rights issue.  To allow a business or place of public accommodation to prohibit the carry of firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is discrimination.  The judge ruled that we do not need to provide justification for carry; "…the right's existence is all the reason [he] needs."  Laws that permit such limitations "…impermissibly infringe[s] the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Second, that "…self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be."  That right does not stop at the entrance of a business or place of public accommodation, and, as is true of the civil rights of religion, speech, due process, etc., cannot be abridged by anyone. The one exception that has survived legal challenges is the ability to openly practice these rights in a place of employment.  Laws allow employers to limit open display of religious/ political symbols or personal items such as jewelry in certain circumstances, but they cannot enact complete prohibition of these rights; the argument can therefore be made that such latitude would apply to employers with regard to open carry of a firearm by an employee, but, similarly, that it does not give them the latitude to completely prohibit the right to concealed carry.

This ruling, as it applies to this issue, provides for consistency and predictability with regard to our civil/legal right to carry firearms; our current system, under which any business and most places of public accommodation can arbitrarily impose their own limitations on the right to carry, has created a hodge-podge of gun-free zones that makes it nearly impossible for conscientious carriers to exercise their right.

As a final thought, I would suggest that, since the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution make no distinction between concealed and open carry, the judge's decision also applies to the need to apply for a CPL, as, to use the judge's reasoning, this amounts to a "rationing system" that requires a citizen "…to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights."  The elimination of the CPL system therefore not only makes sense for Constitutional reasons, but for financial reasons as well, as this would do away with the costs associated with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of what is, in the light of this decision, arguably an unconstitutional system.

Sincerely,