Fourteen Points and Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Difference between pages

Revision as of 04:11, 16 May 2007

Revision as of 00:53, 5 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox US Constitution}}

[[Image:President Woodrow Wilson portrait December 2 1912.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[United States]] [[President of the United States|President]] [[Woodrow Wilson]] listed the Fourteen Points in a speech that he delivered to the [[United States Congress]] on [[January 8]], [[1918]].]]

[[Image: Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg|190px|thumb| The Bill of Rights in the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]]]

'''Amendment IX''' (the '''Ninth Amendment''') to the [[United States Constitution]], which is part of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The '''Fourteen Points''' were listed in a speech delivered by [[President of the United States|President]] [[Woodrow Wilson]] of the [[United States]] to a [[Joint session of the United States Congress|joint session]] of the [[United States Congress]] on [[January 8]], [[1918]]. In his speech, Wilson intended to set out a [[blueprint]] for lasting peace in [[Europe]] after [[World War I]]. The idealism displayed in the speech gave Wilson a position of moral leadership among the Allies, and encouraged the [[Central Powers]] to surrender.

The speech was delivered over 10 months before the [[Armistice with Germany (Compiègne)|Armistice with Germany]] ended [[World War I]], but the Fourteen Points became the basis for the terms of the German surrender, as negotiated at the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris Peace Conference]] in 1919 and documented in the [[Treaty of Versailles]]. However, only four of the points were adopted completely in the [[Aftermath of World War I|post-war reconstruction of Europe]], and the [[United States Senate]] refused to ratify the [[Treaty of Versailles]].

==BackgroundText==

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

The U.S. joined the Allies fighting the Central Powers in 1917. By early 1918, it was clear that the war was nearing its end. The Fourteen Points in the speech were based on the research of the "Inquiry," a team of about 150 advisers led by [[Colonel (United States)|Colonel]] [[Edward M. House]], Wilson's foreign policy advisor, into the topics likely to arise in the anticipated peace conference.

Wilson's speech took many of the principles of [[progressivism]] that had produced domestic reform in the U.S. and translated them into foreign policy ([[free trade]], [[secret treaty|open agreements]], [[democracy]] and [[self-determination]]). The Fourteen Points speech was the only explicit statement of war aims by any of the nations fighting in World War I: some belligerents gave general indications of their aims; others wanted to gain territory, and so refused to state their aims.

The speech also responded to [[Vladimir Lenin]]'s [[Decree on Peace]] of October 1917, which proposed an immediate withdrawal of [[Russia]] from the war, calling for a just and democratic peace that was not compromised by territorial annexations, and led to the [[Treaty of Brest-Litovsk]] in March 1918.

==Adoption==

==Fourteen Points Speech==

When the US Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, [[Anti-Federalists]] argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One argument of [[Federalism (United States)|Federalists]] against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about [[History of the United States Constitution|ratification of the Constitution]], was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article One, Section 8]] of the new Constitution, by implication. For example, in [[The Federalist Papers|Federalist]] [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm 84,] [[Alexander Hamilton]] asked, "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson as follows: "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted"<ref>James Madison, [http://www.constitution.org/jm/17881017_tj.htm Letter to Thomas Jefferson] (October 17, 1788). Madison often expressed this idea, for example in a [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm050127)) letter to George Washington]on December 5, 1789 ("If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended").</ref> in [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article One, Section 8]] of the Constitution.

Gentlemen of the Congress ...

The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions provided their assent with a coda attached, requesting a Bill of Rights to be added. In 1788, the ratification by the Commonwealth of Virginia attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified, by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying:<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratva.htm Virginia Ratification Resolution] (June 26, 1788)</ref>

It will be our best hahahah wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view.

{{quote|That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.}}

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this:

This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment. In 1789, while introducing to the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] twelve draft Amendments, [[James Madison]] addressed what would become the 9th Amendment as follows:<ref>James Madison,[http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html Speech Introducing Bill of Rights] (June 8, 1789)</ref>

I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

{{quote|It has been objected also against a [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.}}

II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

Like Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution". Id. Here is the draft of the Ninth Amendment that Madison submitted to Congress in order to solve this problem:

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

{{quote|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. Id.}}

IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

This was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version. Like Madison's draft, the final text of the Ninth Amendment speaks of other rights than those enumerated in the Constitution. The character of those other rights was indicated by Madison in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights (emphasis added):

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

{{quote|It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, <strong>the great residuum being the rights of the people</strong>; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse. Id.}}

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

For the Founders, "rights" (against the actions of government) were always complementary to delegated powers of government, partitioning the space of public action. Each delimits its complement. Every constitutional "right" (or "immunity" to use [[Privileges and Immunities Clause|a term in Article Four of the Constitution]]) delimits its opposing power, and every delegated power delimits its opposing right.

VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government." The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states.

VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

==Interpretation==

IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

The Ninth Amendment has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion of governmental power on account of the enumeration of rights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The U.S. Supreme Court explained this, in ''[[United Public Workers v. Mitchell]]'' {{ussc|330|75|1947}}:

X. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

{{quote|If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.}}

XI. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

Some jurists have asserted that the Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan) expressed this view in a concurring opinion in the case of ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' (1965):

XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of an autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

{{quote|[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.}}

XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

Subsequent to ''Griswold'', some judges have tried to use the Ninth Amendment to justify judicially enforcing rights that are not enumerated. For example, the District Court that heard the case of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' ruled that the Ninth Amendment protected a limited right to abortion.<ref>[http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/roedist.htm Roe v. Wade], 314 F. Supp. 1217 (1970).</ref> However, Justice William O. Douglas rejected that view; Douglas wrote that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." See ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973).

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated as follows in ''[[Gibson v. Matthews]]'', 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991):

In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.

{{quote|[T]he ninth amendment does not confer substantive rights in addition to those conferred by other portions of our governing law. The ninth amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to ensure that the maxim [[Statutory interpretation#Canons of Statutory Interpretation|expressio unius est exclusio alterius]] would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.}}

For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does not remove. We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.

Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."<ref>Laurence H. Tribe, ''American Constitutional Law'' 776 n. 14 (2nd ed. 1998).</ref> Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in ''[[Troxel v. Granville]]'' (2000):

Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.

{{quote|The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.}}

We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak. Unless this principle be made its foundation no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle; and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess. The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.

<ref>{{cite web|last=Link|first=Arthur S.|date=1984|url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/51.htm|title=FOURTEEN POINTS SPEECH (1918)Woodrow Wilson|format=HTML|accessdate=2007-4-28}}</ref>

In the year 2000, the Harvard historian [[Bernard Bailyn]] gave a speech at the White House on the subject of the Ninth Amendment. He stated that the rights referred to in the Ninth Amendment are rights that may be "enacted into law." Here is how Dr. Bailyn interpreted the Ninth Amendment:<ref>Bernard Bailyn, [http://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/Millennium/bbailyn.html Remarks at White House Millennium Evening] (2000).</ref>

==Reaction==

===Influence on the Germans to surrender===

The speech was widely disseminated as an instrument of [[propaganda]], to encourage the Allies to victory. Copies were also dropped behind German lines, to encourage the Central Powers to surrender in the expectation of a just settlement. Indeed, a note sent to Wilson by Prince [[Maximilian of Baden]], the German [[Chancellor of Germany|imperial chancellor]], in October 1918 requested an immediate armistice and peace negotiations on the basis of the Fourteen Points.

The speech was made without prior coordination or consultation with Wilson's counterparts in Europe. As the only public statement of war aims, it became the basis for the terms of the German surrender at the end of the First World War, as negotiated at the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris Peace Conference]] in 1919 and documented in the [[Treaty of Versailles]].

{{quote|When the federal Constitution was written the wisest minds in America decided that there should be no national Bill of Rights, not merely because most of the state constitutions already contained some such protections, but, as Madison (who would later write the federal Bill of Rights) said, 'There is a great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude.' In other words, the enumeration of rights by the federal government, the mere listing of them and defining them, would necessarily limit their scope. 'The rights of conscience in particular [he said], if submitted to public definition, would be narrowed more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.' The right solution, he and others then felt, was what is implied in the present 9th Amendment: that, in addition to the rights specified by the states, there is a universe of rights, possessed by the people latent rights, still to be evoked and enacted into law.

===Opposition from the Allies===

Opposition to the Fourteen Points among British and French leaders became clear after hostilities ceased: the British were against freedom of the seas; the French demanded [[war reparations]].

But was this workable? In any given situation, someone would have to decide whether the rights that were claimed were valid, and that would leave the existence of rights to the mercy of personal and political opinion, and no one would be safe. Some rights a core body of rights protected against the powers of the federal government would have to be specified, and the residue somehow protected in general terms. This is the compromise that we have inherited from them and that we live with, and struggle with, and benefit from, every day of our lives: in the first eight amendments of the Constitution, a carefully worded list of specific rights protected from encroachment by the federal government, together with the belief that there are not only rights protected by the states but a reservoir of other, unenumerated rights that the people retain, which in time may be enacted into law.}}

Wilson was forced to compromise on many of his ideals to ensure that his most important point, the establishment of the League of Nations, was accepted. In the end, the Treaty of Versailles went far beyond the proposals in the Fourteen Points. The resulting [[Dolchstoßlegende|bitterness in Germany]] laid the seeds for the rise of [[Fascism]] in the 1930s.

===Failure of the U.S. to ratify the Treaty of Versailles===

[[Image:HenryCabotLodgeSr.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[United States]] U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge who opposed ratification of the Treaty of Versailles]]

The [[United States Senate]] refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, making it invalid in the United States and effectively hamstringing the nascent [[League of Nations]] envisioned by Wilson. The largest obstacle faced in the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles was the opposition of [[Henry Cabot Lodge]]. It has also been said that Wilson himself was the second-largest obstacle, primarily because he refused to support the treaty with any of the alterations proposed by the [[United States Senate]].

It is important, when discussing the history of the Bill of Rights, to note that the Supreme Court held in ''[[Barron v. Baltimore]]'' (1833) that it was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states. However, in 1868, the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] was adopted, in large part to overturn that precedent, and the Supreme Court has used that Amendment, together with enabling congressional legislation, to apply some, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states through what is called [[selective incorporation]], thereby enabling a citizen to sue the citizen's own state in federal court (see [[sovereign immunity]]). Since 1938, when the Supreme Court wrote its famous [[footnote four]], the proper application of the Bill of Rights has been an increasingly contentious issue.

===Nobel Peace Prize===

Wilson was awarded the [[Nobel Peace Prize]] in 1919 for his peace-making efforts. He also inspired independence movements around the world, including the [[March 1st Movement]] in [[Korea]]. However, history shows that, despite the idealism, the [[Aftermath of World War I|post-war reconstruction of Europe]] adopted only four of the points completely.

[[Robert Bork]], sometimes styled an "[[originalism|originalist]]", has likened the Ninth Amendment to an inkblot. Bork argued in ''The Tempting of America'' that, while the amendment clearly had some meaning, its meaning is indeterminate; because the language is opaque, its meaning is as irretrievable as it would be had the words been covered by an inkblot. According to Bork, if another provision of the Constitution were covered by an actual inkblot, judges should not be permitted to make up what might be under the inkblot lest any judges twist the meaning to their own ends (cf. [[underdeterminacy]]).

==See also==

* [[American Commission to Negotiate Peace]]

[[originalism|Originalist]] [[Randy Barnett#Ninth Amendment|Randy Barnett has argued]] that the Ninth Amendment requires what he calls a [[presumption of liberty]]. Other originalists, such as Thomas B. McAffee, have argued that the Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated "residuum" of rights which the federal government was never empowered to violate.<ref>Thomas B. McAffee, [http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/mcaffee_federalism_ninth.pdf Federalism and the Protection of Rights: The Modern Ninth Amendment's Spreading Confusion], 1996 B.Y.U. Law Rev. 351</ref> Constitutional historian [[Jon Roland]] has argued,<ref>Jon Roland, [http://www.constitution.org/9ll/schol/pnur.htm Presumption of Nonauthority and Unenumerated Rights] (2006)</ref> that the Ninth Amendment included by reference all of the rights proposed by the state ratifying conventions, in addition to those enumerated in the first eight amendments.

==Notes==

<div class="references-small"><references/>

</div>

[[Gun politics|Gun rights]] activists in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] protects only a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.<ref>Nicholas Johnson, [http://www.guncite.com/journals/nj9th.html ''Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed Through The Ninth Amendment''], 24 Rutgers L.J. 1, 64-67 (1992)</ref> In the related case of ''[[United States v. Lopez]]'', 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court held that while Congress has broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it is not unlimited, and does not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns.

==References==

{{wikisource|Fourteen Points Speech}}

* [http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/51.htm Text and commentary] from the [[US Department of State]]

* [http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/jobrien/reference/ob34.html Text and commentary] from [[John Jay College of Criminal Justice]]

* [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=62 Text and commentary] from ourdocuments.gov

* [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/doc31.htm Interpretation of President Wilson's Fourteen Points] by [[Edward M. House|Colonel House]]

The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the ''enumeration of certain rights'' in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the ''enumeration of certain powers'' in the Constitution. It is to that enumeration of powers that the courts have said we must look, in order to determine the extent of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=330&page=75 ''United Public Workers v. Mitchell'', 330 U.S. 75 (1947)]</ref>

==External links==

*[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm053.html Wilson's shorthand notes] from the [[Library of Congress]]

{{step||[[Treaty of Versailles]]}}

[[Category:International relations]]

[[Category:League of Nations]]

[[Category:World War I]]

==Footnotes==

[[de:14-Punkte-Programm]]

<references />

[[et:Neliteist teesi]]

[[es:Catorce puntos del Presidente Wilson]]

==External links==

[[eo:14 punktoj de Wilson]]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=953008 A Textual-Historical Theory of the Ninth Amendment] by Kurt Lash (2007)

[[fr:Quatorze points de Wilson]]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=789384 The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says] by [[Randy Barnett]] (2006)

[[hr:Mirovni ugovori i stvaranje versajskog poretka]]

* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt9toc_user.html CRS Annotated Constitution: 9th Amendment] by the [[Congressional Research Service]] (2000)

[[it:Quattordici punti]]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=613621 The Lost Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment] by Kurt Lash (2004)

[[he:ארבע עשרה הנקודות]]

* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=615701 The Lost Jurisprudence of the Ninth Amendment] by Kurt Lash (2005)

[[nl:Veertien Punten]]

* [http://freemarketnews.com/Analysis/117/3116/2005-12-07a.asp?wid=117&nid=3116 Rights, the Constitution, and the Ninth Amendment] by [[Tibor R. Machan]] (2005)

[[ja:十四か条の平和原則]]

* [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html Proposed Amendments to the Constitution] by [[James Madison]] (1789)

[[no:Wilsons 14 punkter]]

* [http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/mcaffee_federalism_ninth.pdf Federalism and the Protection of Rights: The Modern Ninth Amendment’s Spreading Confusion] by Thomas B. McAfee (1996)

[[pl:14 punktów Wilsona]]

* [http://www.constitution.org/dhbr.htm Documentary History of the Bill of Rights] -- Compilation of documents

[[pt:Quatorze Pontos]]

[[ro:Cele paisprezece puncte]]

{{US Constitution}}

[[tr:Wilson Prensipleri]]

[[zh:十四點和平原則]]

[[Category:1791 in law]]

[[Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution|09]]

[[de:9. Zusatzartikel zur Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten]]

this info is not reliable