Florida teen detained by TSA for design on her purse

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 1480

The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.[15] It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.[15]

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947).

Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution.

Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991

"[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

So in my humble opinion, it is not a right.

And that is a prime example of the court specifically ignoring the man who wrote the Bill Of Rights. James Madison "The Father of the Constitution", didn't want a Bill Of Rights at all, for the express reason that he believed that if he listed them some would inevitably be left out, and some lawyer down the road would say "They didn't mention that one, so it must not count." He believed that the Congressional and Executive powers listed could and would not be usurped, hence the Federal Government could never incroach on any of our rights, and that ALL rights belonged to the people, and none to the Government. He eventually let himself be persuaded by Jefferson, and by the fact that pretty much everybody else refused to sign if he didn't guarantee that he would include one.

Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

James Madison, Federalist #84

When he did give in, he did everything he could to prevent the government from intruding on unnamed rights.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

James Madison, Draft submitted to Congress

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

James Madison, speech introducing the Bill Of Rights

My point is that it's true that the Government does indeed have the authority (granted by us - Government per se has no "rights" at all) to create an entity to protect its citizens. In this the NTA is no different than the police department - it's there for a reason. I also agree that the NTA and other Federal Agencies have the authority to prohibit the carrying of weapons, even fake or replica weapons, on an airliner. Where I disagree is that an purse with an embossed picture of a gun qualifies, especially when even a cursory look would show that it's obvious that her finger couldn't even fit inside the trigger guard.

Never liked that argument and it has no relevance to this particular incident. Rape is a crime of violence.

It was the first one that came to my head. But the point here isn't the crime, it's the implication that "She should have known better." My point is that she shouldn't have to know better.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute either. Too many examples of case law that prove that. I'll PM them to you if you would like.

You don't need to show me anything. As I often say, I read the Bill Of Rights as meaning one thing: I have the right to do anything I want, as long as I don't infringe anyone else's right to do exactly the same. Everything else springs from that concept.