Amendment IX: Strict Constructionism? Or Just Plain Ol' Disregard For Actual People?

Amendment IX

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

It could very well be that I'm slow. I doubt it. But that could be the case. It's probably my AP US History teacher's fault. But I doubt that, too. I can read for myself.

Now, granted, I'm no constitutional scholar. And I haven't read up on the latest in law journals. But it seems to me that . . . you know what, let me tell you what I'm actually commenting on. Today, I guess, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

You guessed right. It was a split decision. The majority of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy against the minority of Souters, who Sotomayor will replace, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer. You have to read the article because the case is as interesting as the majority reasoning is specious.

Now we return to my regularly schedule diatribe.

My history teacher told us that the 9th Amendment essentially meant that just because the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to use the bathroom in private doesn't mean you don't have that right. And reading for myself, I think it's quite clear. Just because the Constitutional didn't specifically address some specific right doesn't mean the people don't have it. Now, with the 2nd Amendment and the discussion concerning it in mind, we can argue whether "the people" in this case refer to the American collective or individuals. But let's take for granted it refers to individuals. I actually should've done this long ago, but I was a bit lazy and interested in other things.

Oh! Let me write this down before I forget - I'm going to need to do some quick googling of actual Constitutional scholarly articles about the 9th for my own sake if not for whatever contribution it could have to you.

Here's how I understand the 9th and would explain it to a reasonably intelligent child. You know how children like to argue that it's okay that they take the car even after they've been told not to because their parent(s) didn't precisely say, "You are not allowed to drive that car"? Maybe all Mom said was, "Don't let me catch you driving that car," in which case it's okay so long as you don't get caught. Or, maybe all Dad said was, "Don't let me hear tell of you driving that car," in which case it's okay to drive the car, and maybe even okay if Dad catches you driving the car, so long as he doesn't actually hear about your driving the car.

Well, as we know, not a few of the authors of the Constitution were parents and all had been teenage boys, so they knew to guard the country against specious legal reasoning by saying, "Just because we didn't specify a right doesn't mean the people don't have it."

But here's the thing. You know how conservatives argue that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy? Well, you have the 4th amendment for that. The right to abortions? That's in the 9th. Gay marriage? Check the 9th. It's one of those things the conservatives get all funny about when it doesn't apply to them. It's one of those things they become less strict about when they have the chance to jam the individual.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know what legal standing convicts and inmates have in regards to the Constitution. Clearly it's okay, so far anyway, to deny them the right to vote even after they get out. But it does seem fairly quick and easy that they have the right to DNA evidence that may clear them, even if they don't, and here I'm referencing the article, say absolutely that they're innocent.

And too. I'm not trying to render a legal decision. I'm just side with the 4 who were.

Guns Don't Kill, People with Guns Do

I don't know what the problem here is: the shooter; Oklahoma's Make My Day and Stand Your Ground laws; the interpretation of thpse laws; and/or, the general devaluation of black life. At least this kid was an attempted robber, not a police officer. With sympathies to the boy's mother, that does make it a little easier for me to accept. But . . . it's still impossible to accept. You should read the entire article. I mean, I don't begrudge anyone the right to protect themselves. But they have to be in danger. This guy was not in danger. Having "his adrenaline flowing" is no defense.

Druggist Arrested for Killing Holdup Man

By TIM TALLEY, AP
OKLAHOMA CITY (May 29)

- Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore’s security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

The Crime of Blackness, and Sometimes, Torture

Update: h/t to racismreview.com/blog commenter jwbe for bringing this to my attention. Apparently, there have been white officers accidently killed by other officers. Though it does seem rare.

Yeah. I got two stories. One is here from racismreview.com/blog. Basically, an off-duty black cop was killed by a white cop basically because he's black. Yeah . . . I guess someone could argue the same thing would've or could've happened had the off-duty cop been white. But then, of course, I must ask - why doesn't it happen that a plain clothed white officer is killed by mistake by fellow officers? Cause it's not clear that the white cop was even on duty, or had identified himself before shooting, and Edwards, the black cop, was apparently shot in the back.

The other is about Dick Cheney. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) says that the memos don't show what Cheney says they do. Between the two of them, I'm inclined to believe Levin.

She Blamed the Black Guy(s)

Typical. Sorry I didn't look into this until now. I had read a few news headlines, but not the actual story. I hope posting this from racismreview.com/blog will make up for it. ~ No1KState

It Lives: The Image of Me Constructed by You

Posted by Dr. Terence Fitzgerald on May 28th, 2009

“Come on boy; you know the routine. Assume the position.”

Yes, unfortunately in these here United States of America, my skin is my sin. The luck of possessing a hue associated with Africa and the ownership of a Y chromosome carries a heavy burden. The burden was front and center this week within the story of Bonnie Sweeten of Feasterville, Pennsylvania . Ms. Sweeten made a frantic phone call to 911 from Philadelphia, on May 26th from the trunk of a car where she told authorities that she and her 9 year old daughter were, after being rear ended earlier. She went on to say that after the accident, after exiting her SUV, she and her daughter were then kidnapped. The story caught national attention from NBC to Fox news. The police, the amber alert system, and the FBI all pulled their efforts together to save them damsels in distress from the “evil doorers.”

You might ask yourself, who would commit such a disreputable deed? Well it was “two Black men” of course! And of course they were driving, of all cars, “a Cadillac.”

Well today, we found out it was all a disgusting hoax. In fact, the two were bound for Disney World. After taking out thousands of dollars from her family account and buying two tickets to Florida, mother, with her child, were later spotted boarding a plane in Tampa which led the local police to their hideout with Mickey at the Grand Floridian Hotel in Orlando. On Thursday, May 28th, the Today Show discussed the issue of Michelle Henry; District Attorney for Bucks County Pennsylvania, who was asked by the newscaster whether this was a case of racial profiling. Ms. Henry avoided the question raised.

My frustration observed in writing this entry is not without merit. For this country has a long history of feeding a stereotype of Black males as dangerous, oversexed, with out a moral compass [See the book, The Assassination of the Black Male Image by Earl Ofari Hutchinson]. Where again you might ask?

• Examples can be traced from the stereotypical, controversial, and influential 1915 film, Birth of a Nation,
• March 25, 1931, Alabama with the death of what the media called the Scottsboro Boys.
• October 24, 1989, Boston—Pregnant Carol DiMaiti Stewart, 30 years old died, from a gun shot to the head. Her husband, Charles, 29 years old reported to police that a Black man claiming to be an undercover policeman pulled their vehicle over and shot he and his wife; killing his wife and later after two weeks of survival, their eight week premature unborn child. Later the police discovered that the husband actually killed his wife and unborn child.
• October 24, 1994, Union, South Carolina—In order to win the affection of a man with whom she had been having an affair, Susan Smith placed her three year and 14 month old children into the safety devises in her car and rolled the car into John D. Long Lake. She claimed to the police that she and her children were carjacked by a Black man. During the nine days before she had confessed her merciless crime, a number of Black males were harassed and seen as possible perpetrators in the crime.
• July 11, 2007, Tituville, Florida—Bob Allen, a Senior Republican, and former co-chairman of the campaign of Senator John McCain arrested for attempting to solicit oral sex for 20 dollars from an undercover police officer in a men’s toilets facility. Mr. Allen has a long record of being a proponent of ant-gay legislation in Florida. When arrested, he attempted to avoid prosecution by declaring that the undercover police officer, who happened to be a large black man, intimidated him and Allen felt he had to do whatever it took to survive.

Within the 21st century there is an effort to still demonize the Black male and depict them as a threat to society. Black males have been historically and presently seen as a sexual, physical, and emotional threat to Whites. Some Blacks and other people of color have also helped to feed the stereotype. It is time for us all to bash this image when it is presented.