The Lost 9th And 10th Amendment

The US Constitution is not a valid contract. There still are some interesting bits.

The 9th Amendment says

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

and the 10th Amendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Summarizing, they say "The Federal government is only allowed to do the things specifically enumerated here. Otherwise, it's up to individual state governments or the people."

Did State thugs ever declare "The 9th and 10th Amendment are hereby repealed!" No. That would be too obvious. Instead, State parasites take a liberal interpretation of the "commerce clause", "general welfare clause", and taxation power.

Do the 9th and 10th Amendments have any meaning? Here's an easy way to check. Has the Supreme Court ever cited the 9th or 10th Amendment as a justification for limiting Federal government power? The answer is "almost never". Therefore, the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless.

Consider "freedom of the press". Statists say "The Constitution grants people a free press." Actually, "freedom of the press" is a restriction on what government can do. The perspective has changed from "enumerated government powers" to "enumerated individual rights". If you take a literal interpretation of the Constitution, Congress is not allowed to restrict freedom of the press because that isn't an enumerated power. To avoid confusion later, some people insisted on a "Bill of Rights", in exchange for ratifying the Constitution. In 1787, some politicians weren't total tools like they are now. Of course, "freedom of the press" went out the window under President Adams with the Sedition Act.

This is the statist attitude. "People get their rights from the government and Constitution." The correct answer is "People have natural rights." By having "freedom of the press", that avoids silly disputes when State thugs try to kidnap/arrest/torture people based on what they write.

In the USA, you won't go to jail for "criticizing the government" Instead, you're prosecuted for something else. So many things are crimes that State prosecutors have the discretion to arrest/prosecute/imprison anyone.

The US Constitution is not a valid contract. Some fools try to appeal to the 9th or 10th Amendment, as justification for restricting State power. However, any such dispute would be decided in a biased State court.

That is the evil of the government violence/justice monopoly. When State insiders abuse their power, the dispute is settled in a State court. Only a really free market solves the "Who watches the watchers?" problem.

The correct answer on issues of the US Constitution is "The Constitution is not a valid contract. I never personally signed it. I don't have the right to withdraw my consent." It's still interesting to study law and the Constitution, because State thugs don't obey their own rules.