I wonder if there are any other amendments like the Ninth Amendment that hint at principles rather than laying out clear rulings? Personally, the Tenth Amendment comes to mind, as it also works as a constitutional reminder and preserves powers not given to the federal government to the states and their people. These both suggest that the Constitution's text does not provide the full story, which makes me think: how much should courts rely on these unwritten rules when deciding our rights and what they really are?
(1) Yes, courts should rely on unwritten principles: Ignoring the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendment risks denying freedoms the Constitution was meant to protect. Courts need these broad principles to safeguard fundamental rights that the Framers didn’t (or couldn’t) list explicitly.
(2) No, courts should not rely on unwritten principles: Relying on vague ideas not grounded in text or history risks giving unelected judges too much power to define rights based on personal views. If rights are to be expanded, that’s a job for the people and their representatives, not the courts.
I wonder if there are any other amendments like the Ninth Amendment that hint at principles rather than laying out clear rulings? Personally, the Tenth Amendment comes to mind, as it also works as a constitutional reminder and preserves powers not given to the federal government to the states and their people. These both suggest that the Constitution's text does not provide the full story, which makes me think: how much should courts rely on these unwritten rules when deciding our rights and what they really are?
No easy answers!
The two sides of the debate:
(1) Yes, courts should rely on unwritten principles: Ignoring the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendment risks denying freedoms the Constitution was meant to protect. Courts need these broad principles to safeguard fundamental rights that the Framers didn’t (or couldn’t) list explicitly.
(2) No, courts should not rely on unwritten principles: Relying on vague ideas not grounded in text or history risks giving unelected judges too much power to define rights based on personal views. If rights are to be expanded, that’s a job for the people and their representatives, not the courts.