Strict Constructionists

When the founders wrote Amendment IX they understood that some politicians would come in the future and try to say that because the Constitution doesn't specifically list certain rights that the government must have the power to legislate or take away those rights.

This is used by many liberals to promote homosexual "rights", abortion "rights", etc. The problem I have with this use of the 9th Amendment is that these people don't have a proper understanding of where our rights come from.

There are two wrong views of where rights come from, some wrongfully believe that our rights are given to us by the government, while others (most libertarians) believe that we give rights to ourselves. The founding fathers rightfully understood that all rights are given by God, which means that homosexual "rights" and abortion "rights" are not rights since they would never be given by God.

The 9th Amendment, together with the 10th Amendment was written to keep the federal government at bay, but Amendment IX was never intended to give the people a license to sin. Founding father John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

 

Doesn't matter what the Constitution "says" because we are governed by case law.

 

It should matter what the Constitution says, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America! Any case law that is found to conflict with the Constitution should be considered null and have no effect.

 

Yes, it does. Blasphemy is a sin. Amendment I protects it as free speech. In fact, several of the same founding fathers were non-christian deists, and made statements that blasphemed Christ's divinity. Additionally, Amendment I guarantees that persons of any religion, not just Christians, are granted the right to worship as they wish, even if that worship sinfully rejects biblical teachings.

 

Like you stated, the 1st Amendment protects free speech and religious freedom. Our founding fathers understood that because our nation was founded as a way to seek religious freedom that we must be careful not to force our beliefs on others which would lead to religious persecution here. Persons of any religion are granted the right to worship as they wish, even if it rejects the Bible, only because God gives them the freedom to choose, and as a Christian nation our founding fathers recognized that.

Amendment IX was created to say that there are other "God-given" rights that are not enumerated, or listed in the Constitution that are not to be taken away by the government, because 1st Amendment protects free speech and religious freedom, those rights are already enumerated and not considered other rights "retained by the people". Even the right to reject God and Christianity is a "God-given" right!

 

Amendment IX does not say "God given" rights. It simply says rights not mentioned. You said it wasn't intended to guarantee a person's right to sin, but then you backpeddle and say that the right to sin is a "God given" right. You said that the constitution should be interpreted as written, yet God is not written or mentioned in the constitution at all.

 

Yes, it does. Blasphemy is a sin. Amendment I protects it as free speech. In fact, several of the same founding fathers were non-christian deists, and made statements that blasphemed Christ's divinity. Additionally, Amendment I guarantees that persons of any religion, not just Christians, are granted the right to worship as they wish, even if that worship sinfully rejects biblical teachings. </font>[/QUOTE]These rights though were guaranteed against government encroachment. Self-governance in part means that society gets to police itself thus we were also granted property and assembly/association rights that have been thoroughly trampled by liberals because they didn't like the way they were being exercised.

The "correct" answer to civil rights problems other than thing directly done by government against minorities was to let society police itself through boycotts and social pressures. The idea of granting equality in society to minorities is noble. The means employed by government in their attempts to force it upon the people were not.

Free people have every right not to associate publicly or privately with people whose morals they disagree with... and that includes the right to discriminate in employment against smokers, drinkers, drug users, homosexuals, fornicators, etc, etc, etc. If you don't like this discrimination, the correct answer is to punish them in the market, not invoke government confiscation of their rights.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]It means "If we forgot to mention some way that government might unjustly infringe on the rights of individuals... those rights are none the less valid.

 

I was not back peddling, but building on your correction of my statement that "Amendment IX was never intended to give the people a license to sin". I made a bad choice of words in my previous post, I accept your correction.

While our Constitution doesn't make sin illegal, and Amendment IX does not say "God given" rights, our founding fathers understood that all rights are "God given" rights. To properly understand the Constitution as a "Strict Constructionists", you have to understand how the founders thought when they wrote the Constitution. As a Strict Constructionists you have to read the Constitution, understanding that it goes hand in hand with the Declaration, our nations charter, and that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Modern Humanism would say that all rights are given by ourselves or by some other governing authority like the government or the Constitution itself, this thought rejects that certain unalienable Rights are endowed by our Creator, and as will not work with our Constitution and system of government as the founders intended. Again, John Adams statement has been proven true over time that "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

 

Does that include the right of a secular employer to discriminate against a person's religion?

 

I believe it does, if a secular employer wants to have a policy that they don't hire people who won't work on Sundays, then that employer should have that right.

 

That's not the same thing as discriminating against one's religion. Do you think it should be legally permissible for a secular employer to refuse to hire someone because he is a Christian?

 

If a business wants to have a policy of not hiring Christians then they should have the right to do so.

Why would a Christian ever want to work for, or patronize a business with a policy like that?

 

Then you'll have to change the first amendment.

 

Then you'll have to change the first amendment. </font>[/QUOTE]You didn't ask me if the government can choose to refuse to allow Christians to participate in the government matters or to prevent them from the free exercise of Christianity. You asked me if "it should be legally permissible for a secular employer to refuse to hire someone because he is a Christian? What part of the First Amendment says anything about a private business choosing who they will and won't hire?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

JG,

I disagree about the Ninth Amendment being meant to limit the Federal government. What do you base that on? The Founders were very concerned that listing our rights would be incomplete and they simply wanted to ensure that the enumeration of rights would not "deny or disparage" other rights held. The Tenth Amendment was meant to limit the federal government, the Ninth was meant to protect individual rights not listed, just as it says.


Johnv,

Why would anyone have to change the First Amendment to be able to hire anyone they choose? The First Amendment makes NO mention of private action. Granted, there might have to be some changes of some Supreme Court opinions which are wrong, but the First Amendment doesn't limit private hiring choices.

 

We are given rights by our creator. The government is supposed to secure those rights.

See declaration of independence.

As far as employers... Our rights are god given. They cannoy be taken away by anyone.

 

The D of I is not a document of law.

 

Because unless one's religion is a part of the workplace, one's constitutional right to worship are infringed if you are required to change them in order to secure employment.

Are you kidding? Companies get sued every year, and lose, over the issue of employees free speech rights.

Should a company be allowed to fire you because you told someone at home that you don't like the color blue?

Should a company be allowed to fire you if they find out that you own a firearm at home?

Should a company fire you because you voted?