9th Amendment


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


This seems pretty straightforward. However, despite this relatively straightforward language, interpretations of the 9th Amendment have varied greatly over the course of American history.

Some scholars claim the 9th Amendment was designed to be an affirmative protection for rights not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. Others have argued the 9th Amendment was meant merely to state a truism: "that all is retained which has not been surrendered." Others (most people) have ignored this amendment entirely.

So where does the 9th Amendment fit into our Constitution? How should we interpret the 9th Amendment?

As we all remember from American history class, there originally was no Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The framers believed the specific enumeration of powers would be enough to protect individual rights (i.e., if a power was not specifically listed, then the new government did not have that power). Although this idea seems quaint given many subsequent events, at the time of the framing, this concept was at the center of our constitutional design.

However, when the Anti-Federalists -- who opposed the new Constitution -- demanded the inclusion of a bill of rights as a condition of ratification, James Madison obliged them. One of the specific amendments they demanded was, you guessed it, what eventually became the 9th Amendment.

In addition to provisions like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Anti-Federalists feared the power of future federal courts.

Consequently, Madison’s original draft of the 9th Amendment read: "The exceptions, here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."

Unfortunately, a select committee removed the key portion of the proposed amendment that would have prohibited the power of the federal government from being enlarged through interpretation before the amendment was enacted. Thus, the entire purpose of the amendment (and its future applicability) was rendered moot.

The 9th Amendment was intended to provide a mode of interpretation for the Constitution, guaranteeing that federal courts would have been expressly forbidden from creating new governmental powers through clever interpretation. Given how much trouble varying interpretations of the Constitution have caused throughout American history, it’s a shame this principle was not explicitly included. A lot of subsequent and continuing constitutional mischief could have been avoided.