9th Amendment was disregarded, to a large degree, by Judge Scalia.
Scalia said in discussion with
Hoover Institute, "Uncommon Knowledge", 2012.
A sentence of Scalia's directly contradicts 9th Amendment.
Does natural law have a place in interpreting constitutional law?
Look, it says what it says.
I apply United States law.
I don't apply natural law.
God applies natural law.
Now, natural law has a place in writing law,
when you're writing a constitution,
or when you're writing a statute,
you should not put in anything that you know
or believe is contrary to natural law,
but once it's in there, it says what it says.
And if it forces me to do something against my conscience,
of course, I have to resign from the bench.
Did you mention the 9th Amendment?
[..those who are]
looking for other ways to get there, one of the ways is the 9th Amendment,
which [in their view] is a "SOURCE OF UNENUMERATED RIGHTS"
[Scalia's emphasis while quoting and refuting this phrase].
It isn't a source of unenumerated rights.
I apply the 9th Amendment, I apply it rigorously.
I do not deny or disparage other rights.
Maybe there is [other rights], that is not my line of territory.
You are free to argue to the legislator that there is, but
I know it
[an unenumerated right]
is not one of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights,
therefore, is not one of the rights I enforce.
What the 9th Amendment was, was the expression of the framers's belief,
in the natural law. Just because we have a few rights here doesn't mean
that there aren't any others. If you try to take them anyway,
we'll be back on the barricades. That's what it meant.