Retained by the People

By Daniel A. Farber. <i>Basic Books</i>. $26.95.<br /> What if the Constitution explicitly granted liberals’ wish list of rights—basic education, reproductive freedom, sexual privacy, and a dignified death?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

What if the Constitution explicitly granted liberals’ wish list of rights—basic education, reproductive freedom, sexual privacy, and a dignified death? We already live in that promised land, argues law professor Daniel Farber. We just don’t know it, because we’ve made the mistake of ignoring the “silent” Ninth Amendment.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the Ninth states. What this really means is not exactly clear: The Supreme Court has never based a major decision solely on it. But Farber thinks the framers drafted the Ninth to protect “fundamental rights” such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and intended for judges to further define these rights over time. Unlike Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who looks to the framers’ intentions and declares the Constitution “dead” and unchanging, Farber looks to them for proof that the Constitution is not only alive but evolving.

Farber’s reading of constitutional history is solid, but when he tries to apply the Ninth to contemporary controversies, it’s a stretch. His ideas about which new rights the Ninth should protect rely too much on his view that social consensus should guide judges. For example, most Americans support the right to refuse medical treatment but not the right to assisted suicide, so he says that’s the position the Ninth would instruct judges to take. In the end, the Ninth seems unlikely to live up to the promise Farber sees in it.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend