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

This is the ninth amendment. You know the federalist back then in 1787 did not want a bill of rights. They thought it all was implicit in the general body of the consitution. But such a large area and population agreeing to consent to a federal constitution offered the logical  opportunity to stand for some rights. Yet this is morally ambiguos insofar as often the people preferred a monarch, to a senate; one popular man to a patrician movement: Because one monarch had less tentacles than one hundred senators. A republican representative democracy, republican being understood as united disparate regions that might not naturally be united; has more logical force and power, than one king, who may be humoured. Therefore antiquity often cites the political battle between popular autocratic rulers, and patrician senators, patrician being defined as being related to the founders of the nation or city.

But why is the ninth amendment unknown, or unused? No words of law are meant to have no effect? Right? So lets examine the ninth amendment.  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. “

First of all, surprisingly and hithertofor only I have been saying this, (since in my petition for a writ from the Supreme Court in 2005), this law, is what they call in philosophical circles, a logical tautology. This means it is true no matter what. And that criteria is filled here:  If a right is retained by the people, retained already by the people, seriously and firmly retained; if there is active retention of a right going on: Then the federal constitution can not deny or disparage them because they are firmly and in ongoing fashion actively retained. The definition retention is an active and structured one.

       Likewise if a right is not retained, by the people, in a certain instance, then it may be denied and disparaged under the constitution. So the ninth amendment raises the old question, how do we retain a right? And what to do about laws that take away rights. Even if you think there is a lot you are not allowed to do, such as council with your neighborhood and peaceably assembly to improve your time and life and benefit community, sensitive economy and streamline education, or organize communal meals; the federal constitution completely encourages and allows that. These behavior patterns happen because earth’s humans have been transformed to The Kingdom of God, by primordial powers in the universe. It is why the lord didn’t want adam and eve to eat the tree of knowledge, Because then they would evolve, and become desirable for oppression by primordial forces of the universe that predate earth.

       Likewise the specific reservation of powers not given to the federal governmen by the U.S. constitution for the state or the people, not only illuminates the legal conflict between the state and the federal government; but also between the state making decisions for localities versus localities deciding issues for themselves in peaceful assemblies. More importantly though, the limitation of power to the state or the people excludes local officials, who states incorporated towns with in many state constitutions. This of course is a violation of rights of the federal government, uncivilly violated by insensible prejudices of state; for which the 14th amendment is enacted upon the abridgement of priviledges and immunities of the federal constitution.

        Yet civil rights bureau racially profile people, because people of some profiles are likely to not be guarenteed their constitutional rights. Yet the constitutional right to local decisions being made in peaceful assembly, by all there, is abridged to all people, by local officials subsuming the locus of decision-making, causing polity apathy; yet civil rights officials have yet to see this: Because the structural defect that doesn’t recognize peaceful assembly as a natural decision making form for the community is not thinking for itself, but following a form imposed for it. Thus one needs the intervention of the Kingdom of Heaven to change the for so proper and logical thoughts may be apprehended and used to guide proper behavior.  Without this intervention, leaders invested in with power, fail to be the rudder society needs, and without this intervention, one can not expect the status quo, which is performed daily, to change.

      Part of the connundrum of changing the structure influencing the thoughts of people and officials; aside from what that phenomonologically constitutes, is that the people, over generations, have given up their power to officials, and leaders. And yet these leaders have power, and office. And if this power and office can not apprehend the logic and and nature of peaceful assembly community decision making processes, is not the structure and office exposed as a sham, or at least a detriment to natural required thinking process? By this I mean, the people routinely apprehend what I am saying, gracefully concurring and being thankful. Yet they can go no farther, they suppose, because they have given their power and leadership up to official leaders and officials structure and fairness. And yet people in the office of power, because that office has never apprehended peaceful assembly, to say the least of what spiritual guidelines apprehend and act on, the office was made or is in a way that can not apprehend such common institutions. And by common, I mean Princeton made decisions in peaceful assemblies untill 1900, and some towns in New England, that may rival the size of Princeton, such as Amherst Mass, require quorums of 236 for a local decision, to be voted on. And anyone with ten local signatures may provide an issue to be voted on. Thus unless the charactor in office is a good one, the office itself is going to reenforce its structure rather than move forward in good faith; because there is already warped factors constituting the office; such as fear of the press, and grandeur of power, guilt, lack of spiritual guideline, a hollowness. For instance, if there is The Kingdom of God, then election results are made up through the press.

      That the press has not reported a New England style of local decision making style, or the abridgement of peaceful assembly, or my historical cases invoking precedentially the ninth amendment and tenth amendment, exposes the press as where satan works from. Exposes the press as fomenting the problem. Exposes the press as creating a world to obscure the kingdom of god, or the change from human to being. Thus the changes I hope for, towards a discussion of truth, and calculation towards benefit; these implementation of a society that can party together, and work together, of all ages; this natural concourse exists outside the world of media, because media exists within the kingdom of god and creates, like creationism, a world that really doesn’t exist. Somehow, consciously not expecting any press coverage, we must seize that small portion of creation that is us, and realize we have to manifest its spiritual understandings, without the press knowing. The press can’t handle the truth; and by working around the press, we may be able to engender a society the stars have kept us from, that we are held back from now, by our belief in the press.

      To return to the ninth amendment, Repressive laws are always justified by their necessity. Thus cameras in dangerous neighborhoods are justified, as well as searching backpacks in subways, these are justified through cited dangers. Thus by the same token, if a dangerous community reponds to police cameras by reducing violence, and the mulsims and us, admit the errors of our ways, then these infringementss on little rights may change. I’ve always proposed offering the following deal, if alcohol related incidents in N.J. among the ages of 17-21 are reduced by one half, we will lower the drinking age one year. If in the next year, they are not reduced still, they drinking age may go back up, but if they are halfed again, the drinking age may go down another year. And let me remind you, the drinking age is twelve in France, because they do not peer drink or have bars, but drink wine at meals with their parents, and have a shot before bed with their parents; as opposed to some more recreational vision of alcohol.

     Consistent with this understanding of the ninth amendment is  a decision regarding rioting in cincinnatti in the seventies. The judge ruled there may not be a curfew if the need for a curfew has passed. The right to not have a curfew is fairly enough retained to only justify a curfew as needed.

       My advocation of peaceful assembly as where local decisions may be made, and the economy and education we participate in be discussed, and we discuss why we have not had peaceful assemblies,(04-366 District of NJ. Judge Thompson) natural as the be; is historical. So a press concerned with daily creation, is going to be ended by historical proportion, if they are exposed as an apparatus of creation, masquerading as truth. For really truth seems conveyed more in somber tones to a few at a time, rather than immediately to many. Nor is truth daily, Nor does truth have much to do with what the press creates, but contingent upon the apparatus.

     If you google my name, Vic Fedorov; you come across the curious case of Fedorov V. Bloomberg concerning a denied writ of certoraria from the supreme court. Our judciary is incredibly inadequate, mustering pretensions to truth with little ability for truth. Not only is it not aimed against those in power and manned by the lower class, as was the case in good ole ancient rome, but it is embroglioed in defense and criminal acts, a just society engendered by those in power would surely end, had they had a good judiciary aimed at their backs.

        In that petition I argued the ninth amendment gives me the chance to argue that the ordinance in the city of nyc’s administrative code, under the category of noise violations, resulting in a 25$ fine for having an open container of alcohol as a too personal effect, is contingent upon how much noise central park is known for. Because this law, like the curfew, has existed since 1993, it must be examined within light of todays statistics, in order to inspire the denizens of today’s central park to more and more behavior that lifts up restrictions and promotes the behavior capable of the highest laws. Law is a carrot on the stick, and this arcane and unjustified anti alcohol law, must be reexcamined in light of this wide ranging effect and precedential construction of, the ninth amendment.

     And of course, in my mind, as this was going on in federal court concurrent, ith 04-366 which argued every building approved in N.J. every tree destroyed, every pizzaria axed, was approved illegally by local officials. This of course is a historical and huge deal, and got no press coverage, which would have ensure an ethical and charactor-fulled engagement on the part of public officials, who instead, to degrees, seemed turned by their very office, against themselves and their interests. Because it is hard to imagine any journalist or officials, with a family or a friend, who would not want their family or friend to participate in a local decision making process of peaceful assembly. Therefore the control exhibited here is a totalitarian one. Thus the solution is in my mind, not my politics, the problems are not of earth, but the universe, what is NOT religious? I ask you. But certainly not receiving any coverage of this historical application, exposes the press as phony bologny, ironically being the mask it hides itself being that IT IS NOT PHONEY BALOGNY—-Phoney Balogny is over There—-kindof like Catholicism Jesus died for you is not a lie and dressed in purple—which just made the reformation have to get away, and makes you wonder what the fuck the swiss guard thinks it is doing—–

Anyway, people may google Vic Fedorov, and come across Fedorov V. Bloomberg, in the supreme court, and this is what that all is about; My obstinate pursuit of my legal right to drink responsibly; trying to find fame and fortune, in the ninth amendment, and get kegs on the street for it—–My own little investigation into NY, and making it the safest city ever?? infiltrating law enforcement by basing the reduction liberties upon public behavior. Being a lowering the drinking age hero—–but all that didn’t happen. Nothing is as easy as it looks. You still need a judiciary whose decisions are not bound to one or three or nine judges. To overturn history with the association of liberty and drinking, and seeing if NYC could be taken over by drunks, you need scores of people deliberating together to take in the incredible entrenched inhibition to this sort of thinking that is daily reenforced in unethical behavior by all people and officials, because the contracts we are in, symbolize the turmoil of the universe a functional earth apprehends and tries to cure totalitariansim through divine, and structured, intervention

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: