Ninth Amendment

[Earl Maltz]

Clearly, my categorical statement was wrong.  However, it is hard to 
imagine a more inappropriate context than Igartua in which to invoke the 
Ninth Amendment.  The text of the Constitution clearly establishes the 
procedure by which the President is to be chosen.  It establishes an 
Electoral College that is limited to representatives of the states (which 
the last time I looked, Puerto Rico is not).  Second, states are not 
required to allow anyone to vote for President.  Instead, the electors are 
to be chosen by the processes established by the respective state legislatures.

At 11:41 AM 2/8/2006 -0500, you wrote:

> >Finally, a question with a clear answer.  The Ninth Amendment was
> >not understood, and never has been understood, to have any relevance
> >to suffrage.
>
>
>Except in 2000, when a U.S. District Judge ordered 1.8 million ballots 
>printed in Puerto Rico citing the Ninth.  Igartua v. United States [a.k.a 
>. Igartua II] at 107 F.Supp. 2d 140 and 113 F. Supp. 2d 228.
>
>"The Ninth Amendment guarantees individuals those rights inherent to 
>citizenship in a democracy which are not enumerated in the Bill of 
>Rights.  In this way, the Ninth Amendment recognizes that the Constitution 
>is not exhaustive in its listing of rights and that the people retain 
>certain rights."
>
>"Further, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that certain parts which are 
>not spelled out in the Constitution must be recognized in order to make 
>the Constitution whole.  In Griswald v.  Connecticut, the Court recognized 
>a personal right to privacy which was not articulated in so many words in 
>the Constitution."
>
>"As in Griswald, not recognizing the right to vote in Presidential 
>elections to the United States Citizens residing in Puerto Rico would make 
>the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution void."
>
>(Above quotes found at 107 F.Supp. 2d at 235)
>
>The matter is now again before the Supreme Court #05-650 in Igartua III on 
>a pending cert petition.
>
>If indeed this is the first time the Ninth has reached the Supreme Court 
>as a voting rights amendment then a reasoned academic discussion on the 
>matter seems timely.
>
>I believe that the unenumerated rights of the Ninth, although perhaps a 
>short list, would have to include voting in Presidential elections.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Michael Richardson
>
>
>----------
><http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2734??PS=47575>Search, shop, and browse smarter 
>using tabs with the MSN Search Toolbar-FREE!