DNAprotection
Member
BACKGROUND
"This action is proceeding on the complaint filed November 4, 2003. Plaintiff alleges that federal government officials have thwarted his attempts to possess, plant, cultivate and use hemp for various reasons, including food, cloth, paper, building materials, and above all for use in his pain management. Although plaintiff filed an application with the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") to grow and use hemp, he claims his application was returned without being processed as incomplete and lacking the filing fee. Plaintiff is currently in possession of cannabis seeds and medical cannabis. After dismissal of his claims under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, as well as the Commerce Clause and an Executive Order, the only claim remaining is under the First Amendment and/or RFRA (Religious Freedom and Restoration Act). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief."
Above is an excerpt from a federal ruling in a case that was claiming that humans have the natural right to possess, plant and cultivate seeds of any kind and that government has no constitutional authority to restrict such activity generally. The case was foremost reaching for the 9th amendment in claim to said natural rights but was also accompanied with other constitutional claims meant as back up arguments in case whatever other claims were dismissed.
The reason for posting this is to examine the 9th amendment to the US constitution which states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I'm wondering what those words mean to you?
The federal judge in the case above ruled that any claim based on a right held within the 9th amen was frivolous and without merit on its face because the 9th amen only exists for judges to use when interpreting the rest of the constitution in adjudicating any particular case.
In other words he said there can be no claim based on the 9th amen of the constitution...and the 9th amen exists only for judges to be used as an interpretive tool.
"This action is proceeding on the complaint filed November 4, 2003. Plaintiff alleges that federal government officials have thwarted his attempts to possess, plant, cultivate and use hemp for various reasons, including food, cloth, paper, building materials, and above all for use in his pain management. Although plaintiff filed an application with the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") to grow and use hemp, he claims his application was returned without being processed as incomplete and lacking the filing fee. Plaintiff is currently in possession of cannabis seeds and medical cannabis. After dismissal of his claims under the Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, as well as the Commerce Clause and an Executive Order, the only claim remaining is under the First Amendment and/or RFRA (Religious Freedom and Restoration Act). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief."
Above is an excerpt from a federal ruling in a case that was claiming that humans have the natural right to possess, plant and cultivate seeds of any kind and that government has no constitutional authority to restrict such activity generally. The case was foremost reaching for the 9th amendment in claim to said natural rights but was also accompanied with other constitutional claims meant as back up arguments in case whatever other claims were dismissed.
The reason for posting this is to examine the 9th amendment to the US constitution which states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I'm wondering what those words mean to you?
The federal judge in the case above ruled that any claim based on a right held within the 9th amen was frivolous and without merit on its face because the 9th amen only exists for judges to use when interpreting the rest of the constitution in adjudicating any particular case.
In other words he said there can be no claim based on the 9th amen of the constitution...and the 9th amen exists only for judges to be used as an interpretive tool.
Last edited:
