User talk:David Jackson Ingraham

It is in the interest of our nation to codify the responsibility to the liberty of the people as protected by the 9th and 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Here is an understanding of the necessary duty to codify. I hope you will respect my interpretation of this Amendment as I have been thinking about offering this interpretation as a California State Constitutional Initiative as the state interpretation of the 9th and 10th amendment. This will set a compliance to the 10th Amendment of responsibility of the people to define our rights and liberty.

I am writing with concern for our individual rights to liberty for the people.

We have become a nation where our nation prison system is a for hire service, with the objective of financial gain, to the point of corruption through support of political candidates, that will provide a continuous assortment of laws that will fill our prisons. A money making proposition for law enforcement, the attorneys, prison systems, and the courts. The injustice to the people is representative of the tyranny of a police state in violation the Constitutional mandate to " secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity"... The original intent of the Constitution specifically declares this responsibility to all of use.

The U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment is there for that purpose to protect the individual liberty of the people. Quoted here: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The first interpretation and responsibility of this Amendment is to establish the rights of the people as numbered in the list of amendments and articles, even though the statement of a right is not expressed, such as the 1st Amendment, with regards to "Congress shall make no law". This Statement has been made to have all law makers comply to the right of the people by all of the governments of our nation.

An additional 2nd interpretation of this amendment Leaves open a responsibility to Other Rights of the people not expressed, but open to constitutional protection as so stated in the 9th Amendment constitutional mandate “ Shall not be construed to deny others (other rights) retained by the people.

An additional 3rd interpretation is: The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has a duty for the judiciary to maintain a responsibility to respect the greater right of the people for the limitation of the jurisdiction of the law. Other wise, they should be found in contempt of the 9th Amendment, based on, " shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." With "others" representing a meaning of "other rights". The other rights of the people are those common to the individual survival, property rights, free trade, and freedom of the people for which common acceptance of society has understood the sense of this respect, but not limited too. Meaning that some settled law limitations have been determined in the past as an institutional constriction of these rights, which previously have not been judged to the responsibility of the 9th Amendment, as required for all the judiciary, the President, congress, state governors, legislators, county and city government leaders, to include all levels of government agencies as required for all, per their oath of duty and office to our U.S. Constitution. Specifically: when in doubt of a right, the right of the person in question will prevail.

The 4th interpretation is where a judgment for the right of the people is in conflict between interpretation between the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme court of the individual states, that which provides the greater respect for the right of the people, shall prevail. This is responsibility of respect for the rights of the people under the10th Amendment, and if a more restrictive law is created by the state than the federal law, then the federal law shall relieve the restriction of the state law based on the 9th Amendment.

Should a right have been judged by the Supreme Court with providing a greater right based on interpretation of the constitution and the sense of the people have said "no" to that right and that the people use the 10th Amendment process to change the right to a more restrictive understanding of the right, then it shall not be accepted as an Amendment due to the intent to “ Deny or Disparage” clause of the 9th amendment.

All interpretation are relative to the responsibility and duty of the 9th Amendment. That it represents a personal individual right for each and every one of us, that majority right’s do not trump individual rights protected by the 9th Amendment, and the 10th amendment.

Best Regards

David Jackson Ingraham