America's Unwritten Constitution in New Diary

I am reading a book called America’s Unwritten Constitution by Akil Reed Amar. I am on Chapter 3. I am reading a section in that chapter about the Ninth Amendment. This states that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be used to deny other rights belonging to the people . The author says that the document does not go into detail about where this rights are to be found

He also talks about the 14th Amendment. This Amendment prohibits states from making any laws that shall infringe on the rights of the citizens of the United States. But like the 9th Amendment this amendment does not itemize what these rights or privileges of the people are .

The author says that in order to find these unlisted rights we must look beyond the written constitution. We must look for rights that are implied by the words of the document. These rights are not or expressly declared in a specific clause. Nevertheless, these rights are indeed “full fledged constitutional entitlements.”

Then the author talks about a hypothetical situation. There is a defendant on trial for murder in the District of Columbia. He is innocent of the crime. A man with close ties to the prosecutors office is the real murder. The defendant was able to obtain forensic evidence . This evidence was a knife that had the victims blood on the blade and the real murder’s fingerprints on the handle

I was reading that the prosecutor moves to exclude the evidence. He says that the defense team obtained the knife by deception and trespass. There is a DC statute on the books that prohibits introducing any evidence acquired illegally. Lawyer for the defense counters that the defendant has a constitutional right to establish his innocence. The prosecutor claims there is no such right specifically enumerated in the Constitution so the DC statute should prevail. How should the judge rule? The author says for the defendant. The Ninth Amendment hold sway in the case.

I was reading where the prosecutor might base his case on the 6h Amendment. This amendment lists the rights of an accused person. It says that the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial. He shall also enjoy the right of a trial by an impartial jury. He has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and the right to confront witnesses. Among others are the right to council. These rights are explicitly stated in the Constitution.The author goes on to say there is no explicit right that lets the defendant to introduce physical evidence. The very words of the 6th Amendment disallows any supposed right claimed by the defense.

The author says the 9th Amendment will be construed to in order to decide the situation in the defendant’s favor. The author says that we must not read the 6th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution in ‘stingy, negative implication, rights denying fashion. It says that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. This means that the defendant has the right to establish his own innocence.

This is but some of the stuff I’ve been reading .It is pretty complicated to me. I get discouraged . But I am determined to read this book. I hate spending money on a book and not reading it and getting as much as I can from it.

It is back to my book