Therefore, Hamilton and Madison added the 9th amendment to the document to pass the constitution(get the votes of anti-federalist) and to prevent future misinterpretations. The 9th amendment is most recognized as the silent amendment. However, basic rights such as the Right to Travel hasn't been specified in the Bill of Right or even thought about over the past decades. But with the recent death of Otto Warmbier, the Trump's administration has banned American citizen to travel to North Korea. Thus if an American citizen wishes to travel to the Hermit country they have to take it to court and argue their point by using the 9th amendment. (1)However, since there are not a written foundations for interpreting the rights covered in the amendment, it is up to the court to decide what is and what is not covered. Since there is much controversy, even among leaders in the court system, there has never been a judicial decision made on the basis of the amendment alone. The amendment has simply been cited in certain cases. (2) For instance in the cases of West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish(1937) the court had rejected the idea that the constitution protects “substantive rights,” protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of
Therefore, Hamilton and Madison added the 9th amendment to the document to pass the constitution(get the votes of anti-federalist) and to prevent future misinterpretations. The 9th amendment is most recognized as the silent amendment. However, basic rights such as the Right to Travel hasn't been specified in the Bill of Right or even thought about over the past decades. But with the recent death of Otto Warmbier, the Trump's administration has banned American citizen to travel to North Korea. Thus if an American citizen wishes to travel to the Hermit country they have to take it to court and argue their point by using the 9th amendment. (1)However, since there are not a written foundations for interpreting the rights covered in the amendment, it is up to the court to decide what is and what is not covered. Since there is much controversy, even among leaders in the court system, there has never been a judicial decision made on the basis of the amendment alone. The amendment has simply been cited in certain cases. (2) For instance in the cases of West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish(1937) the court had rejected the idea that the constitution protects “substantive rights,” protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of