I like your interpretation of IX, it also supports the right to medical procedures. I have no quarrel with anyone's personal religious beliefs, except when they try to force other people accept those beliefs. I confine myself to my own beliefs, I neither force them on others or expect others to accept mine (I am an atheist) I expect the …
I like your interpretation of IX, it also supports the right to medical procedures. I have no quarrel with anyone's personal religious beliefs, except when they try to force other people accept those beliefs. I confine myself to my own beliefs, I neither force them on others or expect others to accept mine (I am an atheist) I expect the same courtesy in return. Which is why I object to the Supreme Court trying to force - on the entire Country, any belief not held in the Constitution - which is what they did with Roe v Wade (for good reasons) Citizens United (for bad reasons) and Dobbs (also for bad reasons). My view of the Constitution is strictly literal, which is how you are viewing both the 9th and 10th Amendments. For which I thank you.
I am a non-theist and totally agree with your point of not trying to force others to accept their beliefs. I have read the IXth and Xth amendments several times and I still am not sure if they contradict each other or not.
Good to know, Gary. I like the term non-theist, far more descriptive that atheist. Since James Madison is credited with writing the first ten amendments, I doubt they were intended as conflicting. During the writing of the Constitution that very hot summer of 1787, Madison and others wanted the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. It was decided to have James Madison write the first ten amendments as the Bill of Rights. My reading of 9, tells me they, the framers, wanted to assure that just because something was not granted or denied in the Constitution did not necessarily mean it was not a human right. Amendment 10 leaves omissions in the Constitution to the States or the people to decide. I like that they used or instead of and. This implies that we, as citizens have rights the State does not want to give us.
I like your interpretation of IX, it also supports the right to medical procedures. I have no quarrel with anyone's personal religious beliefs, except when they try to force other people accept those beliefs. I confine myself to my own beliefs, I neither force them on others or expect others to accept mine (I am an atheist) I expect the same courtesy in return. Which is why I object to the Supreme Court trying to force - on the entire Country, any belief not held in the Constitution - which is what they did with Roe v Wade (for good reasons) Citizens United (for bad reasons) and Dobbs (also for bad reasons). My view of the Constitution is strictly literal, which is how you are viewing both the 9th and 10th Amendments. For which I thank you.
I am a non-theist and totally agree with your point of not trying to force others to accept their beliefs. I have read the IXth and Xth amendments several times and I still am not sure if they contradict each other or not.
Good to know, Gary. I like the term non-theist, far more descriptive that atheist. Since James Madison is credited with writing the first ten amendments, I doubt they were intended as conflicting. During the writing of the Constitution that very hot summer of 1787, Madison and others wanted the Constitution to include a Bill of Rights. It was decided to have James Madison write the first ten amendments as the Bill of Rights. My reading of 9, tells me they, the framers, wanted to assure that just because something was not granted or denied in the Constitution did not necessarily mean it was not a human right. Amendment 10 leaves omissions in the Constitution to the States or the people to decide. I like that they used or instead of and. This implies that we, as citizens have rights the State does not want to give us.