Ninth Amendment Case
April 10, 2009 | 05:31 AM

"Cardoza ruled in favor of the county in a matter of minutes at the March 27 hearing, concluding that there is "no constitutional right to engage in recreational dancing in a liquor-selling establishment." He issued no opinion and declined further comment."

Last I checked, the Constitution was a document that limits the powers of the GOVERNMENT, Cardoza you jackass, not the people. Read the Bill of Rights. It's all about how the government CAN'T do certain things. It also says that rights that are not enumerated don't mean they aren't protected. That IS in the constitution. If fact, it's one of the amendments of the Bill of Rights. The Ninth! How the hell did you get to be a judge anyhow? You really need to go back to school.

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

This means, that without a doubt, that just because it's not a right explicitly guaranteed in the constitution, that it can be assumed we have no right to it. The founding fathers knew that things would come up that they didn't list. This amendment was used to address that. Judge Cardoza's comment shows that he ruled on an improper interpretation of the constitution, and in fact, clearly ruled in violation of it instead. The Ninth Amendment is the one to stick to him.

Someone get this guy a US Constitution and make sure he doesn't burn it.

Kukui