From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Final Answer to Tavares (Re: The Ninth Not Dead Yet)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Dec22132938@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1h8bchINNhnd@transfer.stratus.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 01:17:58 GMT

In article <1h8bchINNhnd@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:


[Email posted without my permission is deleted, as such an act is
 totally unacceptable to me. I have stated before that I consider
 such an act a gross breach of net.ethics.]

{Since Tavares is willing to stoop to the posting of email without
 permission or even notification, the followup is set to a group
 where he will feel much more at home}

	Taveres claims the 9th isn't dead, because Blackmun
	makes passing reference to it in the following passage:

<> <   On alt.politics.usa.constitution someone posted a small excerpt
<> <   from Roe v. Wade that restores some of my faith in the Court.  It
<> <   seems that the Ninth WAS used, at least partially, as justification
<> <   for the "right of privacy."  From Blackmun's majority opinion:
<> 
<> <   "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of 
<> <    privacy.  In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized 
<> <    that a right of personal privacy, or of a guarantee of certain areas 
<> <    or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.  In varying <
<> <    contexts the Court or individual justices have indeed found at 
<> <    least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the 
<> <    Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of 
<> <    Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty 
<> <    guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment."
<> <   (Shapiro, Martin and Hobbs, Douglas S. : The Politics of 
<> <    Constitutional Law, Winthrop Publishers, Cambridge, 1974, p.491)
<>  
<> 	So, because Blackmun paid lip service in passing to
<> 	the Ninth in 1973, you maintain it is alive in 1992?

[More text from email posted without permission deleted.]


<> 	Ok, name the Justices who concurred with this decision
<> 	that are still sitting on the Supreme Court.
<> 	Next, name a decision since Roe that cited the 9th
<> 	as a serious element of the argument.

< No.  First, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference.  Second,
< forgive me if I decline to research your arguments or your strawmen.

	Tavares claims that the 9th is alive because a Justice
	who no longer sits on the Supreme Court paid lip service
	in passing to it while "discovering" a right in an
	emanation of a penumbra of the Bill of Rights. When
	called upon to name a decision since then that invoked
	the 9th as a serious element, he refuses.

	Probably because he knows that he *cannot* do so.

	However, it is obvious by now that Tavares isn't interested
	in the 9th, nor in the oligarchical implications of moving
	responsibilities for defining new rights from Congress
	to 5 Justices of the Court, he just wants to have his
	little fun by posting email without permission OR 
	notification, then flaming away.

[STILL MORE text from email that was posted without permission
 deleted.]

<Well, sorry, but you were obviously pulling claims out of your butt.

	I claim that at best the SC invoked the 9th out of
	lip service, not as a serious argument in Roe. vs. Wade.
	I had forgotten that Blackmun even bothered to include
	it in his "fig-leaf" attempt, however.

	So glad Tavares never commits any errors.....


<They did, at least partially, invoke it, and I find that a healthy
<sign.

<  > 	I'm sure that, when HHS Secretary Shalala declares
<  > 	that only "gun-free" homes are appropriate for children
 <  > 	and orders gun owners with children to remove all guns
 <  > 	or be charged with child abuse, or when the CDC declares
 <  > 	all guns as "vectors of violence" and issues orders
 <  > 	for all doctors to report such vectors to CDC, or 
 <  > 	when EPA declares all lead bullets to be "toxic waste"
 <  > 	and requires anyone with ammunition to turn in their
 <  > 	"waste" or face Federal charges.....
 <  > 
 <  > 	the 9th will be a shield for us all....right?
 <  > 
 <  > 	You betcha.

<   Your stance is evidently to concede it.  Mine is that we should not.
 

	Why, here's one now: No, Tavares, you've completely
	misread my stance, just as you obviously misread the 
	posting guidlines that many newbies find fairly easy
	to read in alt.new.posters or whatever it is called.

	For your benefit, here's one: "Do not post email without
	the permission of the person who wrote it to you".

	Now then, since Tavares is on record as supporting the
	Supreme Court's ability to "discover" new "rights",
	I reckon that if (when?) the SC "discovers" the
	"rights" of children to "gun free homes" in the 9th,
	Tavares will stand right up and cheer. Those of us who
	are able to think in a slightly longer-term than
	Tavares (i.e., longer than "next eating time") will
	find it a disquieting event.



	The point is, relying on 5 persons to "discover" rights
	is not a Republic, it is an oligarchy. Tavares obviously
	wishes to live in such an oligarchy, but I for one do not.



	Then again, I don't post email without permission, either......
	and the followup is set to a group more appropriate for
	Tavares.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape