- Joined
- Jul 13, 2017
That's a good question, actually.Wonder what a ninth amendment absolutist would be like. I guess a Stirnerite arguing that any impediment on any action taken by someone is a breach of some unenumerated right?
I would think it would be easier to be a Third Amendment absolutist than a Ninth Amendment absolutist, because the Third Amendment is pretty clear on its face, and narrowly tailored to deal with one issue.
There's really nothing wrong with the Third Amendment as such, and it's easy enough to be an absolutist in regard to it, but it's somewhat difficult to envision a scenario where it would be relevant and invocable in modern U.S. society. It was something they stuck in there because of a specific British practice at the time the founders found offensive.
Meanwhile, courts have really struggled with the meaning of the Ninth Amendment.