The Ninth Amendment and Dianne Feinstein

[The2ndAmendment]

(This thread is in reference to Dianne Feinstein vs Ted Cruz, and how she infamously declared that the government was being nice by permitting certain weapons.)
----------------------------------

There seems to be a frightening shift in rhetoric concerning our governing philosophy. This shift has been towards the idea of Government created Privileges, instead of Naturally Endowed Rights:

Dianne Feinstein revealed her philosophy that the government CREATES and PERMITS rights. That the government may DENY and DISPARAGE the rights that it CREATES and PERMITS.

Such entities are not called rights, they are called "Privileges." Our Constitution was founded upon the philosophy of Natural Rights, endowed by the Creator at birth (all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights).

This foundation of our Constitution is CEMENTED BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT:

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

By making this announcement, she admitted that she rejects the Libertarian Philosophy of our Founding Fathers, and has exposed herself as an Authoritarian. She really needs to go back to 6th Grade and reread John Locke. She has not only confessed that she has broken her oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but has also confessed that she is in opposition to its Fundamental Design.

This thread was created by the Aegis of Liberty:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Aegis-of-Liberty-Common-Sense-2013/590931764270050

 

[hortysir]

Di Fi = Du Fu

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Adding Aegis of Liberty facebook page to thread

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Aegis-of-Liberty-Common-Sense-2013/590931764270050

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think the Progressive had a heart attack when they read the Ninth Amendment, there is no counter argument to this thread. They probably only just read the Ninth Amendment for the first time, or finally understood its meaning.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Diane lost her awb More rock chucks will die

 

[Agit8r]

She is obviously referencing how the five conservative SCOTUS justices admitted that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute.

As if somehow a ownership of a man made creation could be a natural right... *shakes head*

 

[Mr. President]

The second amendment allows for the people of the united states to be able to overthrow the government should it be necessary. It is the right of the people to remain free of tyrants. This freedom can only be enforced through superior numbers and firepower. Should the government become one of unopposed tyranny it will be because the people failed to protect their rights and allowed the second amendment to be run into the ground.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

She is obviously referencing how the five conservative SCOTUS justices admitted that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute.

As if somehow a ownership of a man made creation could be a natural right... *shakes head*

Do you want me to provide the video and the "time" that she says the government permits rights? Or do you want to delete that post while you have a chance?

Time's up:

Listen to the entire video (With the Ninth Amendment and the entire OP in mind), listen VERY CAREFULLY at 2:50 and 3:50.

Apparently she denies the philosophy of the Ninth Amendment at 2:50, but she accepts the philosophy of the Ninth Amendment at 3:56 ("The answer is obviously No").

However, to deny the philosophy of the Ninth Amendment based on your preference, but to accept the Ninth Amendment under another set of preferences, in fact confirms that you don't believe in rights, but you believe in privileges; it is a contradiction, and thus confirms her opposition to the Ninth Amendment, the Foundation of our Constitution.

 

[Clementine]

Those of us who appreciate the rights and liberties we have know that our constitution is a solid foundation, which this country was built on.

Those who believe in government control and only granting certain privleges to citizens see our constitution as a road block. It is under attack. I've heard many comments on how outdated it is or how it should change with the times. I honestly believe that radical liberals would love to shred it and write their own.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Agit8r, it is futile to argue against your own beliefs. Let this be a message to other supporters of Dianne Feinstein on this issue.

There seems to be a polarized opinion on who won that debate, Dianne Feinstein supporters believe she won overwhelmingly because they believe in state privileges, instead of natural rights; whereas Ted Cruz supporters believe he won overwhelmingly because they believe in natural rights, instead of state privileges.

Why do you argue against your own solid beliefs? Embrace them, you have the freedom of thought and expression, just like I do; in my opinion, the freedom of thought is created at birth, in your opinion, the freedom of though is created by the State.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Progressives are clueless about the Ninth Amendment, otherwise they'd be SWARMING this thread based on its title alone.

 

[Black_Label]

A rant by some nutcase on facebook, that's sure legit

 

[The2ndAmendment]

A rant by some nutcase on facebook, that's sure legit

When all else fails, resort to Ad Hominem attacks, that's a more important argument than the Ninth Amendment, I'm glad you hold us in such high esteem. Also, are you declaring that an entire congregation of very well educated minds are a bunch of Nutcases? We are the Aegis of Liberty, impervious to both the barrage of the tyrants and fools.

EDIT:
Turn your rep on.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In all sincerity, I believe this represents the overall schism in American politics today, and why there is so much inside fighting within both parties at the moment.

The Libertarians in both parties are polarizing against the Statists in both parties. Within another ten to fifteen years we may even see the Statists in the Democrat and Republican parties combine into a single party (Democrat-Republican Party) and there will be a real Libertarian Party, most likely named after the type of currency reform they are seeking (Greenback Party, Silver Party, etc)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ninth Amendment Education commence!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

True to the title.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

(This thread is in reference to Dianne Feinstein vs Ted Cruz, and how she infamously declared that the government was being nice by permitting certain weapons.)
----------------------------------

There seems to be a frightening shift in rhetoric concerning our governing philosophy. This shift has been towards the idea of Government created Privileges, instead of Naturally Endowed Rights:

Dianne Feinstein revealed her philosophy that the government CREATES and PERMITS rights. That the government may DENY and DISPARAGE the rights that it CREATES and PERMITS.

Such entities are not called rights, they are called "Privileges." Our Constitution was founded upon the philosophy of Natural Rights, endowed by the Creator at birth (all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights).

This foundation of our Constitution is CEMENTED BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT:

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

By making this announcement, she admitted that she rejects the Libertarian Philosophy of our Founding Fathers, and has exposed herself as an Authoritarian. She really needs to go back to 6th Grade and reread John Locke. She has not only confessed that she has broken her oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but has also confessed that she is in opposition to its Fundamental Design.

This thread was created by the Aegis of Liberty:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Aegis-of-Liberty-Common-Sense-2013/590931764270050

Most every reasonable person rejects ‘Libertarian Philosophy,’ the Framers in particular.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She is obviously referencing how the five conservative SCOTUS justices admitted that the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute.

As if somehow a ownership of a man made creation could be a natural right... *shakes head*

Correct.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

DC v. Heller (2008)

 

[NYcarbineer]

(This thread is in reference to Dianne Feinstein vs Ted Cruz, and how she infamously declared that the government was being nice by permitting certain weapons.)
----------------------------------

There seems to be a frightening shift in rhetoric concerning our governing philosophy. This shift has been towards the idea of Government created Privileges, instead of Naturally Endowed Rights:

Dianne Feinstein revealed her philosophy that the government CREATES and PERMITS rights. That the government may DENY and DISPARAGE the rights that it CREATES and PERMITS.

Such entities are not called rights, they are called "Privileges." Our Constitution was founded upon the philosophy of Natural Rights, endowed by the Creator at birth (all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights).

This foundation of our Constitution is CEMENTED BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT:

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

By making this announcement, she admitted that she rejects the Libertarian Philosophy of our Founding Fathers, and has exposed herself as an Authoritarian. She really needs to go back to 6th Grade and reread John Locke. She has not only confessed that she has broken her oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but has also confessed that she is in opposition to its Fundamental Design.

This thread was created by the Aegis of Liberty:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Aegis-of-Liberty-Common-Sense-2013/590931764270050

I was just told by a conservative here that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant because while it acknowledges the existence of unenumerated rights, the Supreme Court has no power to protect those rights because the Supreme Court has no right to identify those rights.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I was just told by a conservative here that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant because while it acknowledges the existence of unenumerated rights, the Supreme Court has no power to protect those rights because the Supreme Court has no right to identify those rights.

This OP never declares that the Supreme Court has the ability to declare these rights. Nice straw man argument. The corporate think tanks, the federally funded universities and the Authoritarian elite have done their job well to hide the purpose, intent and meaning of the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment functions as an Advisory amendment, in order to instruct the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us by birth, not by government; that government can only perpetrate oppression, not liberty, via the denial or disparagement of rights; that government at its very best is but a necessary evil.

They amended it into the Constitution (instead of publishing this fact in some other book/document) because it would be there for EVERYONE to read, for EVERYONE to know, so that it could not be HIDDEN from public view. However, the elite has a done a good job, so much that you fools say the Amendment is "irrelevant."

Seriously, think about it, do you think the Congress and that State legislatures went through all that trouble to ratify a useless amendment?

Isn't this the same argument that same Statists and Authoritarians make about the 2nd Amendment? That's it useless and obsolete since we don't use muskets anymore?

Isn't this what they say about due process and Habaes Corpus because it is an inconvenience to them? The NDAA and Patriot act were passed under those exact pretenses, were they not?

Isn't this what they say when people assemble and petition against Wall Street, that freedom of assembly is irrelevant, because the FBI declared us Occupy Wall Street organizers terrorists?

The method of convicting non-combatant US citizens of treason under Article III, Section 3 is irrelevant because of terrorism and fake weapons of mass destruction correct?

The Constitutional ability of the US government to issue its own currency interest free is irrelevant because the International banks want to live off our income tax right?

The right of states under Article I, Section 10, to coin and print their own money based on Gold and Silver is irrelevant because the Federal Reserve (private central bank) wants to live off the States interest, correct?

IN FACT EVERYTHING THE CORPORATE PLUTOCRACY FINDS INCONVENIENT, THEY FIND ANY EXCUSE TO MAKE IT IRRELEVANT.

I got a message for the Plutocrats (apparently you must be one of them), this si how we'll restore the Rule of Law (not a single person harmed by the way):