Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rutgers!caip!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom
Message-ID: <16100@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:12:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.16100
Posted: Sat Oct 11 04:12:07 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 06:26:47 EDT
References: <980@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <117400070@inmet>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16

In article <117400070@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>That's true, as far as it goes. But some rights are so basic
>that they had never been questioned, and therefore were not
>specifically asserted. The Framers noticed this problem,
>and *addressed* it in the 9th and 10th amendments.

   Neither the Ninth nor the Tenth Amendment have any bearing on the
question of a Constitutional "right to privacy."  The Ninth Amendment
merely makes it clear that the Constitution does not *deny* the right
to privacy, but this in no sense means that this "right" is guaranteed
or protected.  The Tenth Amendment is even more unrelated; all it says
is that the States and the people have certain powers, and it does not
address the question of the extent of the powers of the State over the
people; that is left to the individual state constitutions.

   -- David desJardins