The Ninth Amendment: The Tenth’s Partner

  • Share on Tumblr

The Ninth Amendment states, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to reinforce limits on the federal government.

The original Constitution contained three types of restrictions on federal power:

Type 1:     The Constitution listed things the government could not do (e.g., pass an ex post facto law).

Type 2:     The Constitution enumerated the powers the government was to have (e.g., regulate interstate commerce, but not agriculture).

Type 3:     The Constitution included specific restrictions on specific powers (e.g., Congress could appropriate money for an army, but only for a two-year period).

Some argued that Type 1 should be expanded with a Bill of Rights. But others (James Madison among them) pointed to a risk in that proposal.  Because of the legal maxim Designatio unius est exclusio alterius (the designation of one thing implies the exclusion of another), adding a Bill of Rights might encourage people to disregard the Type 2 and 3 restrictions on federal power.

When the demand for a Bill of Rights prevailed, Madison agreed to draft one – but he included what became the Ninth Amendment to make it clear that expanding Type 1 did not mean abandoning Types 2 or 3.

A key to reading the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendments properly is to know that the Founding Generation often used the words “right” and “power” interchangeably. (We more rarely do the same, as when we refer to the President’s “right” to veto a bill.)  That is how they were used here.  If you sometimes read the word “rights” in the Ninth Amendment as “powers” and “powers in the Tenth Amendment as “rights,” you can better understand their meaning.

Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment.  For example, some have argued that it reserved a mass of “natural rights” that the Courts should enforce against the federal, and even the state, governments – such as abortion, property, and contract rights.  That misunderstanding arises from failure to understand that “rights” in the Ninth Amendment means “powers.”

The Ninth Amendment was not designed to enable the Courts to create new rights – or even to recognize old ones.  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to preserve the Constitution’s other restrictions on federal power.

About Rob Natelson

In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, , ,

12 comments
Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

Guest - the amount of constitutional questions in your comment is far too much to address in a comment. I suggest you read more on this subject from Professor Kurt Lash, one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, and an expert on the 9th amendment.

You can start with:

a) his new book - The Lost History of the Ninth Amendment
b) his seminal research publication - "The Inescapable Federalism of the Ninth Amendment," 93 Iowa Law Review 801(2008)

Guest
Guest

While I generally agree with Prof. Natelson and I know this is a very old post, I just read it and feel compelled to reply in support of Jerome's observation and in response to Michael's challenge in case some people are still reading this post and its comments (as I just did).

First, in reply to Micahel's challenge to Jerome that Jerome 'back up' his statement, I note that Prof. Natelson offers no support for his conclusion that:

"The Ninth Amendment was not designed to enable the Courts to create new rights – or even to recognize old ones. It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to preserve the Constitution’s other restrictions on federal power."

other than a vague reference to his opinion that the word 'power' can and "sometimes" should be substituted for 'rights' and vice versa.

Prof. Natelson doesn't tell us exactly WHEN we should substitute these words for each other except, apparently, we should do so when it allows us to agree with his conclusion and we should not do so when it leads us to disagree with him.

I'm a federal lawyers and student of the Constitution for 30 years so I feel it's appropriate to point out, yet again, that we are not free to simply change the carefully chosen words of the Constitution when we don't like the result obtained by adhering to the original language therein.

In this case, there is no compelling reason to conclude that the Founders and Ratifiers meant anything other than what they wrote and approved in the 9th amendment. If one reads it carefully, it simply says that the people's "rights" listed in the first 8 amendments aren't a complete list. Obviously, this means the people thought they had other rights as well. Exactly what those 'other rights of the people' might be is left open since it's not possible to draft a complete list.

Further, in the 10th amendment, the drafters used the word "powers" delegated to government. This is understandable since people have rights and governments have powers. It would have been awkward to refer to 'delegated rights' since governments are not living beings and thus have no rights.

Moreover, the 'powers' not delegated to the United State were 'preserved' by the States and the people. Again, States do not exist in the real world so it would have been awkward to refer to 'rights' being preserved to the States.

Please notice that the Bill of Rights all consist of only one sentence. This was obviously an intentional drafting technique but it causes some slightly awkward moments (which often are revealed by the use of a semi colon).

Given the fact that the 10th amendment refers to three different entities (US Government, States and the people) in one sentence, and that 2 of the entities are not real, it's hard to come up with a good way to distinguish between rights and powers in a grammatically concise, correct and consistent way. Hence, the slightly awkward language.

Despite this minor awkwardness, it's clear from reading the entire document carefully that the drafters were concerned that including a list of people's rights might someday be used to limit those rights to only those on the list. So, just to be clear as a bell, the drafters added the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment's focus is on the people and it clarifies that the people's rights are not limited to those in the list.

The 10th amendment's focus is on the federal government and makes it clear that the federal government has no power that is not listed in the Constitution. This is perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable and shows extremely careful and artful drafting. If only people were as clever and careful today!

If you adopt Prof. Natelson's view that the 9th amendment is only a limitation on the federal government's powers, the 9th amendment is surplussage because the 10th amendment already says that the federal government is limited to the powers listed in the Constitution.

A basic rule of logic and legal construction is that documents should not be construed to render parts meaningless if a different construction gives meaning to all parts of the document.

Thus, it follows that Prof. Natelson's conclusion is wrong. Jerome is right.

Again, the 9th amendment protects people's rights from being limited to those listed in the first 8 amendments.

Finally, courts do not 'create new rights' as Prof. Natelson seems to claim. They do, however, recognize 'old' ones when they issue rulings that protect the core concepts of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' from being usurped by governments.

One of the challenges for the court system is to understand that Griswold v. Connecticut got it right; there is a "penumbra" of rights and they are not listed in any one resource. The courts must strive to recognize what the rights of the people truly are and what actions by governments intrude upon those rights.

It's not perfect but you have no hope if you don't understand the basic concept of freedom.

Milwaukee Progressive Examiner
Milwaukee Progressive Examiner

No, this article is wrong. The 9th deals with the rights of individuals, not of a state. Why would the Founders have made 2 constitutional Ammnendments that stated the same thing, essentially? No, the 9th guarantees to individuals rights not previously stated. So, when courts protect a right that isn’t listed in a previous ammendment they aren’t “inventing rights” but upholding rights retained by the people. The burden is on government (and not just the federal government but state or local also) why a person should not be able to practice any action.

Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

@MPE/Jerome - these two amendments don't deal with the exact same thing, but like the rest of the bill of rights and the constitution itself - they're intended as a limitation on the power of government....

The Professor provides some significant analysis in this short piece - do you have anything other than your opinion to back up your statement?

Milwaukee Progressive Examiner
Milwaukee Progressive Examiner

No, this article is wrong. The 9th deals with the rights of individuals, not of a state. Why would the Founders have made 2 constitutional Ammnendments that stated the same thing, essentially? No, the 9th guarantees to individuals rights not previously stated. So, when courts protect a right that isn’t listed in a previous ammendment they aren’t “inventing rights” but upholding rights retained by the people. The burden is on government (and not just the federal government but state or local also) why a person should not be able to practice any action.

Jerome
Jerome

No, this article is wrong. The 9th deals with the rights of individuals, not of a state. Why would the Founders have made 2 constitutional Ammnendments that stated the same thing, essentially? No, the 9th guarantees to individuals rights not previously stated. So, when courts protect a right that isn't listed in a previous ammendment they aren't "inventing rights" but upholding rights retained by the people. The burden is on government (and not just the federal government but state or local also) why a person should not be able to practice any action.

Jerome
Jerome

Of course the 9th Ammendment deals with protcting a mass of rights unnamed and its' meaning isn't only a philosphical statement on the federal government but on all governments. Although Founders like Jefferson couldn't curb state abuses on say, free exercise of religion that does not mean that wasn't a concern of theirs. A state violating my rights is just as bad as the federal government doing the same.

Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

Jerome - thanks for your perspective. Important issue, no doubt. And yes, when a state violates rights it can seem as bad as federal violations.

But, in practice, when the federal government creates new laws or regulations that violate your liberty it's far worse than when a single state does it.

Why? because there's no escape.

And that's part of what the founding generation gave us with this idea of a federal republic.

reddog
reddog

In reply yo comment #2
Monorprise Says:

They are really the same thing except one(rights) is implied to exist legitimately regardless the usurpation of others.

In regards to your comment above, It is my belief that only people have rights, and governments have power...am I wrong?

Monorprise
Monorprise

How does a court or anyone distinguish the concepts of Rights and powers?
They are really the same thing except one(rights) is implied to exist legitimately regardless the usurpation of others.

The break down in the understanding of the language of the Constitution i feel has helped fuel the break down in that document.

Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

Rights vs powers is an important issue to discuss.

States and governments do no have rights. Only people have rights.

Governments only have powers - and they only have those powers that people delegate to them - nothing more.

Well, that's the way it's supposed to be!

Samaritan
Samaritan

The Ninth Amendment was, and is, a cautionary warning to the federal government that the people were the masters in this country and not elected (or appointed) officials. Our rights are exactly those that we do not temporarily lend to the federal government for the purpose of defending our rights, period!

When the actions of the federal government injure or threaten our rights we have a right, even a duty, to recoup those powers lent to the government to make new assurances for our future happiness. In short if the government becomes the problem and not the solution we can replace it!

If this description seems uncannily like our current government then, perhaps, they will begin to take notice before the torches and pitchforks arrive on Pennsylvania Ave. and finally begin to respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The choice is of course theirs to make...

Trackbacks

  1. [...] The Ninth Amendment, The Tenth’s Partner [...]