Ninth Amendment

Finally, the appellant raised the issue of whether the Morton Grove ordinance conflict with a fundamental right to self-defense implied in the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment says that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ... 

The Ninth Amendment argument was quickly dismissed as lacking any convincing precedents. Appellants may believe the Ninth Amendment should be read to recognize an unwritten, fundamental, individual right to own or possess firearms the fact remains that the Supreme Court has never embraced this theory. ... 

Apparently penumbras and their emanations can be very powerful, especially in constitutional law. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965), the majority of the Supreme Court justices found that a zone of privacy was created from die penumbras and emanations of die first, third, fourth, and ninth amendments to die U.S. Constitution. The constitutional right to privacy thus cobbled together has been... 

U.S. Congress. 1986. Superfimd amendments and reauthorization act of 1986. Title III—Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know. Ninety-ninth Congress of the United States of America. 

The federal appeals court overruled the district court with regard to the action taken against the defendant, but its decision left intact the lower court s conclusions about the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, however, other federal appeals circuits (notably the Ninth) have continued to deny the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

A similar California case (Kasler v. Lockyer, Cal. 4th [2000]) also included a claim that the state s assault weapons law violated the Second Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in upholding the law also ruled that because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision. ... 

T]he people seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by the People of the United States. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to the people. While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that the people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of people who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (citations omitted).. . ... 

The cooperative had also argued that even if the necessity defense is not allowed, the Controlled Substances Act exceeds the power of Congress under the constitution s Commerce Clause, and that enforcing this law against medical marijuana patients would deprive them of the right to due process and infringe on liberties guaranteed by the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. However, because these constitutional issues were not raised earlier in the appeals process, the Court declined to consider them. 

Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance. 

Most of the current efforts to amend FIFRA concentrate on the tolerance and food safety provisions of FIFRA and the FFDCA. For years the EPA has interpreted the Delaney Clause of the FFDCA to impose a negligible risk standard for pesticide residues on food, whereas others, including influential environmental groups, read the section to allow zero risk. EPA s interpretation was struck down by the Ninth Circuit in Les v. Reilly. The EPA asked the Supreme Court to review that decision. Their petition was denied on March 8, 1993. Legislation has been proposed on several occasions to change the outcome of Les v. Reilly however, none to date has been adopted... 

Council Directive 91/173/EEC of 21 March 1991, amending for the ninth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, Official Journal L 085. 05/04/1991 0034-0036. 

The following is the consolidated text of the OPCW Finaneial Regulations and Finaneial Rules as approved at its First Session and amended by the Conferenee of the States Parties at its Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Sessions and the Exeeutive Council, respectively, and as set forth in document OPCW-S/DGB/22, dated 14 December 2012. ... 

C-II/D C.10/Rev.l adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at its Ninth Session on 2 December 2004 and entitled Scioitific Advisory Board , amending C-II/D C.10/Rev.l adopted by the Confermce at its Second Session on 5 November 1997... 

The Terms of Reference of the Scientific Advisory Board were amended by the Conference of the States Parlies at its Ninth Session (C-9/DEC.13, dated 2 December 2004). These amendments have been incorporated into the text of the Terms of Reference of the Scientific Advisory Board annexed to this revised decision, which consequently supersedes all previous versions [footnote in original]. 

---