The entire anti federalist argument against the bill of rights was that people may assume that what was not written meant the government could invade those rights. The response was the 9th and 10th.
Which, it turns out, was completely and trivially correct (the 9th was poorly-written but it's not like they could have done any better at the time)- they already invade the ones that are written down and invent novel legal theories to do so; how much worse would it be for the ones that are not (and are unpopular enough that would need a right to protect them)?
p
Which, it turns out, was completely and trivially correct (the 9th was poorly-written but it's not like they could have done any better at the time)- they already invade the ones that are written down and invent novel legal theories to do so; how much worse would it be for the ones that are not (and are unpopular enough that would need a right to protect them)?
More options
Context Copy link