Source: http://constitution.org/9ll/schol/kurt_lash_juris_9th.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:03:57+00:00

Document:
until it was resurrected by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut .
legitimacy and scope of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment.
doctrinal and historical vacuum, an assumption that no one has questioned until now.
disparage others retained by the people." U.S. CONST. amend. IX.
assertion of a right."); PROCESSES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONMAKING 113 (Paul Brest et al.
Constitution, it subsequently went unnoticed by the Supreme Court for 174 years."); Randy E.
Goldberg rescued [the Ninth Amendment] from obscurity in his concurring opinion in Griswold v.
innocuous rule of construction limiting the federal government to its delegated powers").
3 . Griswold , 381 U.S. at 490.
4 . Id. at 490 n.6.
Deal, and the legitimacy and scope of incorporation doctrine.
5 . Id. at 490.
justice," or is contrary to the "traditions and (collective) conscience of our people."
Id. (citing PATTERSON, supra note 2, at 4).
construction limiting the federal government to its delegated powers.").
(2004) [hereinafter Lash, The Lost Original Meaning ].
9 . Id. at 360ï¿½62.
purpose of the Ninth was to "guard against a latitude of interpretation"
remained influential for more than a century.
action by the Fourteenth Amendment.
10 . Id. at 361.
MADISON: WRITINGS 489 (Jack N. Rakove ed., 1999).
in a doctrinal and historical vacuum.
protect the retained right of the people to local self-government.
the jurisprudence that this Article recovers, a brief review is in order.
construction limiting the interpretation of enumerated federal power.
rights.12 Ultimately, these would become our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
what we know as the Ninth and Tenth.
12. Lash, The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8, at 360.
13 . Id. at 371ï¿½75.
the people of the several states.
14 . Id. at 384ï¿½93.
15 . Id. at 379ï¿½84.
during this period. One possible exception is In re Graduates , 11 Abb. Pr. 301, 322 n.4 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. 1860), but the reference to the Ninth is obscure and made in passing.
and 3d clauses of section 9, art. 1, of the constitution, and the 9th amendment." Id. at 428.
Joseph Story as "so utterly wrong in principle and authority, that I am sure he cannot be sane." J.
18. United States v. Robins, 27 F. Cas. 825, 826 (D.C.S.C. 1799) (No. 16, 175).
20 . Id. at 828.
22 . Id. at 832.
23. 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 540 (1840).
24 . Id. at 541ï¿½42.
governors treated extradition requests as a matter of their own discretion).
Amendment claims as involving the proper interpretation of federal power.
26 . Holmes , 39 U.S. at 555.
28 . Id. at 556.
being deprived of others by implication, that might not be included in the enumeration.
into action those powers for the protection of the citizen.
31. 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 512, 513 (1863).
war. See infra section III(B)(1) (discussing the Legal Tender Cases ).
33 . Roosevelt , 68 U.S. at 514ï¿½15.
34 . Id. at 515ï¿½16.
35 . Id. at 512ï¿½13 (alteration in original).
36 . Id. at 515.
37 . Id. at 515ï¿½16.
38 . Id. at 517.
committed. The clause does not touch civil rights or civil remedies.
40. 22 F. Cas. 756 (C.C.D.N.H. 1814) (No. 13,156).
41 . Id. at 766.
42 . Id. at 767 (internal citations omitted).
44 . Id. at 767ï¿½68.
to the Founding-era understanding of natural rights, see Lash, supra note 8, at 401ï¿½10.
concurrent powers of state government.
recognition and protection of natural rights as a matter of state law).
48. Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 1, 49 (1820) (Story, J., dissenting).
49. THE FEDERALIST No. 82, at 492 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961).
to the State, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 141 (St.
51 . Id. at 154.
52. State v. Antonio, 3 S.C.L. (1 Brev.) 562 (1816).
of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.").
54 . Antonio , 3 S.C.L. (1 Brev.) at 567ï¿½68.
or necessary implication, the effect is the same.
Id. at 578 (Nott, J., dissenting).
57. This monopoly would be the subject of a great deal of litigation. See, e.g. , Gibbons v.
ignored his argument, ruling instead that his ferry run was protected under the holding of Gibbons v.
58. 9 Johns. 507, 508 (N.Y. 1812).
59 . Id. at 515.
culmination of his legal career was his argument before the Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Ogden .
Id. at 210ï¿½11; see also infra note 112 and accompanying text.
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
such as were explicitly given by the constitution.
Livingston , 9 Johns. at 550ï¿½51.
principle of the points thus conceded, because not involved. And why?
62 . Id. at 590.
64 . See infra notes 300ï¿½326 and accompanying text.
65. Barnaby v. State, 21 Ind. 450, 452ï¿½53 (1863).
which called for the application of the Ninth Amendment.
not the Tenth, that informed the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
There are other questions, where the state and federal courts both have jurisdiction.
upon the impregnable ground that they have never been surrendered.
ninth and tenth amendments reserve to the states all powers not expressly delegated.").
The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8, at 410ï¿½13.
Story was referring to the Ninth. Id. at 572.
70. Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 49 (1820) (Story, J., dissenting).
WRITINGS, supra note 11, at 489.
73 . See TUCKER, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, supra note 50, at 151, 154.
the "6th article of the amendments to the constitution").
to Houston, federal power over the militia was "exclusive of state authority,"
Preemption of State Militia Legislation , 79 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 39, 39ï¿½40 (2001); David B.
the national government beyond what the people have granted by the constitution.'").
cited by the Supreme Court. See, e.g. , Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458ï¿½59 (1990).
Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century , 1998 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1359, 1379ï¿½84.
79 . Houston , 18 U.S. at 58.
80 . Id. at 2.
the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." U.S. CONST. art. I, ï¿½ 8, cl. 15.
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." U.S. CONST. art. I, ï¿½ 8, cl. 16.
82 . Houston , 18 U.S. at 4.
Questions of this nature are always of great importance and delicacy.
83. 9 Johns. 507, 508 (N.Y. 1812).
84 . Houston , 18 U.S. at 8.
87 . Id. at 48 (Story, J., dissenting).
repugnancy or incompatibility in the exercise of it by the states.
incompatibility exists, must necessarily yield.
90. U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
the Ninth Amendment's rule of construction.
without correction or any indication that the reference is mistaken. See infra notes 108ï¿½151.
on the other hand, is never quoted again by any litigant or any court--state or federal.
turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.
360 (detailing the drafting history of the Ninth Amendment).
In Houston , the defendant was attempting just such a "political heresy."
and to train them according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
(Fred B. Rothman & Co. 1991) (1833) [hereinafter STORY, COMMENTARIES (1991 reprinting)].
94 . Houston , 18 U.S. at 4ï¿½6.
95. U.S. CONST. art. I, ï¿½ 8, cl. 16.
Congress over the militia, is exclusive of State authority").
above is taken from the United States Reports and contains no noticeable errors.
states--the right to create courts martial.
99 . See supra note 97.
in WRITINGS, supra note 11, at 489.
BY THE PEOPLE, as a part of their residuary sovereignty.
Academic Press 1987) (1833) [hereinafter STORY, COMMENTARIES (1987 reprinting)].
102. Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 50 (1820) (Story, J., dissenting).
jurisdiction to hear such cases even when the crimes were committed within the state's borders.
powers the individual and reserved rights of the states, is a nullity.
Argument of George S. Yerger, State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. (8 Yer.) 543 app. at 560ï¿½61 (1835).
without discussing the Ninth or Tenth Amendments. Id. at 334ï¿½37.
COMMENTARIES (1991 reprinting), supra note 93, at 277.
reprinting), supra note 101, at 711, 713.
106 . See infra notes 125ï¿½128 and accompanying text.
Ninth Amendment in Houston v. Moore .
sought to establish a far broader reading of federal authority.
107. TUCKER, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, supra note 50, at 154.
108. 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 130ï¿½31 (1824).
109. 9 Johns. 507, 561 (N.Y. 1812).
110 . Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 17.
111. 3ï¿½4 WHITE, supra note 17, at 211.
112. Emmet's name is misspelled in the United States Reports. See Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 79.
113 . Id. at 86.
U. CHI. L. REV. 887, 944 n.399 (1982).
115 . Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 86.
116 . Id. at 130ï¿½31. Emmet made a similar argument in North River Steamboat Co. v.
117 . Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 130ï¿½31.
118. Emmet could have, for example, paraphrased the passage without quoting.
119 . Id. at 87.
120 . See supra note 116.
121 . Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 41 n.a.
reference to Emmet's Ninth Amendment argument or to his quoting Story's opinion from Houston .
the result in Gibbons ; Story believed that the federal commerce power was exclusive. See David P.
when sustained, to make them the tests of the arguments to be examined.
126 . See Lash, The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8, at n.405.
127. An opinion Marshall most likely joined. See supra note ___.
128 . Gibbons , 22 U.S. at 196.
Amendment arguments in Livingston v. Van Ingen .129 In New York v.
129 . See supra note 63 and accompanying text.
130. New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837).
131 . Id. at 143.
132 . Id. at 161 (Story, J., dissenting).
133 . Id . at 150ï¿½51 (Thompson, J., concurring).
134 . See supra note 63 and accompanying text.
been advanced, that Congress had not covered the whole ground; . . . .
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 181ï¿½97 (photo. reprint 2000) (1837).
Miln , see infra subpart II(D)(3).
slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain.").
139 . Id. at 622 (quoting Sturges v. Crowinshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193).
140 . Id. at 650 (Daniel, J., concurring).
142. 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 498 (1849) (Daniel, J., dissenting).
143. The other case was Norris v. City of Boston , 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 282 (1842).
144 . Smith , 48 U.S. at 409.
to exclusive power in Congress, as expressed in the case of Houston v.
Constitution and such as are necessary to the exercise of powers expressly delegated.
Meaning , supra note 8, at 389.
146 . Smith , 48 U.S. at 498. (Daniel, J., dissenting) (referring to Groves v. Slaughter , 40 U.S.
(15 Pet.) 449, 511 (1841).
148. In this instance, Daniel's quotation is correct.
149 . Smith , 48 U.S. at 499 (Daniel, J., dissenting).
150. Story's tenure on the Court ended with his death in 1845.
Houston v. Moore may have been welcomed by Story himself.
Crow , 14 Mo. at 326ï¿½27 (citation omitted).
154. TUCKER, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, supra note 50, at 151.
Marshall nevertheless declared "nor is there one sentence in the constitution"
nationalist reading of the Constitution.
their interpretations of federal power than were earlier works like those of St.
with personal rights in support of an unenumerated natural rights reading of the Ninth Amendment.
interference with, or adding to, an individual's prior obligations to the state.
156. According to Saul Cornell, Tucker's Commentaries was "an instant publishing success"
THE OTHER FOUNDERS 263 (1999).
157. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 187ï¿½88 (1824).
158 . See White, supra note __, at 86ï¿½95.
205 (photo. reprint 2003) (2d ed. 1829).
"expositions of constitutional law enjoy a rare and extraordinary authority.
direct repugnancy or incompatibility in the exercise of it by the states. . . .
necessarily yield [citing Houston v. Moore , 5 Wheat. 48. Per Story, J.].
because Rawle believed the restrictions of the first eight amendments also bound the states. See id.
needless jealousy, or rancorous enmity."), and he expressly praises Marshall's opinion in Gibbons .
161. JAMES KENT, Lecture XVIII , in 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 365 (1826).
union are in direct and manifest collision on the same subject . . . .").
163. 3ï¿½4 WHITE, supra note 17, at 105.
numerous citations to the very page in Houston that includes the reference.
165 . Id. at iii.
166 . See, e.g. , id. at 287 n.1, 289 n.1.
167. TUCKER, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, supra note 50, at 151.
168. 1 STORY, COMMENTARIES (1991 reprinting), supra note 93, at 393.
170 . Id. at 401ï¿½02.
the Ninth Amendment, see Lash, The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8, at 417ï¿½22.
172. 1 STORY, COMMENTARIES (1991 reprinting), supra note 93, at 421ï¿½22.
Houston as a rule of construction.
173 . Id. at 431ï¿½33.
courts believed the passage contained any error, for they quoted it in briefs and judicial opinions.
the Ninth Amendment as "Unenumerated Rights Clause").
takes on even greater significance as, in effect, an admission against interest.
Amendment on federal power and, in fact, this may have been Story's intent.
interpreted scope of enumerated federal power.
Amendment-based readings of the Constitution like those proposed by St.
rather than debate its meaning.
178. 3 STORY, COMMENTARIES (1991 reprinting), supra note 93, at 774.
was linked to the Tenth as a statement regarding the limited powers of the federal government.
Huntington, 43 Ind. 167, 169 (1873).
the Transformation of the 10th Amendment (Jan. 14, 2005) (manuscript on file with the author).
182. 1 Doug. 207 (Mich. 1843).
183 . Id. at 211.
184. Compare Story's opinion in Houston v. Moore , 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, 49 (1820).
185 . E.g ., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 489ï¿½90 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring).
views of these Founding-era figures remained critically incomplete.
ultimate fate of Houston v. Moore , however, raises an intriguing possibility.
Amendment may really be about the Ninth.
in 1 THE RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE, supra note 2, at 1 (discussing Madison); Knowlton H.
supra note 2, at 102ï¿½03 (discussing Story).
186 . See generally Lash, The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8.
187 . See, e.g. , PATTERSON, supra note 2, at 32.
Marshall Court's reluctance to cite and rely on the Ninth Amendment.
E. The Ninth Amendment and "the Enumeration . . . of Certain Rights"
to vary with varying circumstances. . . .
The general correctness of these observations cannot be controverted.
other rights retained by the people, such as local control of civil institutions.
188 . See infra section IV(B)(2).
189. 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 628 (1819).
190 . Id. at 627ï¿½28.
facto restriction in Article I, Section 10. Id. at 624ï¿½25.
193 . Id. at 624.
194 . See infra notes 273ï¿½288 and accompanying text.
powers.196 Cases decided by the nationalist Marshall court, such as Martin v.
E. Veit et al. eds., 1991) [hereinafter CREATING THE BILL OF RIGHTS].
197. 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).
198. Stunt v. The Steamboat Ohio, 3 Ohio Dec. Reprint 362 (Hamilton Dist. Ct. 1855).
(Ohio 1856) (Bartley, C.J., dissenting).
rights which Bartley believed included the right to chattel slavery.
200 . See Anderson v. Poindexter, 6 Ohio St. 622, 631 (1856).
201 . Id. at 686 (Bartley, C.J., concurring) (emphasis omitted).
202. Mitchell v. Wells, 37 Miss. 235, 264 (1859).
203 . Id. at 283ï¿½84.
204. Willis v. Jolliffee, 32 S.C. Eq. (11 Rich. Eq.) 447, 450ï¿½51 (1860).
205 . Id. at 448.
206 . Id. at 450.
207 . Id. at 491.
enumerated power expressed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Tenth Amendments. Id. at 517.
209. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856).
210 . Id. at 509.
211 . Id. at 600.
so only in regard to the scope of enumerated federal power.
ignored the Ninth in major cases interpreting the scope of federal power.
however, read it in line with Justice Story's analysis in Houston v. Moore .
in his Houston dissent applied the Ninth as a federalist rule of construction.
as an active federalist constraint on the interpretation of federal power.
would prevail, at least until the dawn of the New Deal.
213 . See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, ï¿½ 1.
listed in the first eight amendments.
issues; a complete analysis requires a separate article.
individual liberty. See AMAR, supra note 160, at 215ï¿½30.
217 . See Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment , 101 YALE L.J.
churches); Daniel O. Conkle, Toward a General Theory of the Establishment Clause , 82 NW. U. L.
establishments from federal interference." (footnote omitted)).
PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (1995).
219. MICHAEL KENT CURTIS, FREE SPEECH, "THE PEOPLE'S DARLING PRIVILEGE,"
220 . See AMAR, supra note 160, at 181ï¿½87.
Lash, The Second Adoption of the Free Exercise Clause , supra note 215, at 1146ï¿½49.
Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of--"life," "liberty,"
document. It left no personal or natural right to be invaded or impaired by construction.
All these rights are established by the fundamental law.
understanding of the Bill of Rights, including the Ninth Amendment.
source of unenumerated rights in support of congressional power to pass the 1875 Civil Rights Act.
of its own, as a free-floating affirmation of unenumerated rights").
the Tenth, however, made Rawle's list of rights.
50, at app. 307ï¿½08; Lash, The Lost Original Meaning , supra note 8, at 396ï¿½99.
226. RAWLE, supra note 159, at 120.
Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.").
William F. Swindler eds., 1985). John Yoo believes that adding the language "of the several states"
Part showed, state courts had already read the federal Ninth in exactly the same way.
powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the states.
except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.
of America, but to the people of the several states.
developed increasingly elaborate theories of natural rights, individual liberty, and higher law . . . .").
power by radical antislavery lawyers).
decisions such as Calder v. Bull ,234 Fletcher v. Peck ,235 and Terret v.
unifying theme of the First Amendment's freedoms" by the 1860s).
233. For examples of abolitionists citing only the first eight amendments, see WILLIAM M.
234. 3. U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798).
235. 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810).
236. 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43 (1815).
years or prohibiting the importation of them").
239. CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1089 (1866) (statement of Rep. Bingham).
240 . See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2467 (1866) (statement of Rep. Boyer); CONG.
encompassing only the first eight rather than ten amendments . . . . ").
241. CONG. GLOBE, 36th Cong., 2d Sess. 212 (1860) (statement of Rep. Benjamin).
242 . Id. at 214.
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
was, and a statement that, on that construction, and under that impression, they ratified it." Id.
245. Barnaby v. State, 21 Ind. 450, 452 (1863).
the court's understanding of the federal Ninth Amendment.
to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.
encroachments of the state governments, may be considered a truism.
this violated the ex post facto restriction in Article I, Section 10. Id. at 624ï¿½25.
the Legal Tender Cases . See infra notes 262ï¿½271 and accompanying text.
the payment of particular debts in U.S. notes did not include the particular debt at issue.
Philadelphia & R.R. , 19 F. Cas. at 492.
same interpretation of the Ninth Amendment at the time of the Founding.

References: v. 
 v.

 art. 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.