ness. I was convicted, given a 60-day jailnsentence (suspended), and fined $100.nOne beneficent result of my little campaignnwas to stir the Congress to removenthe jail sentence from the censusnstatute; the $ 100 fine still applies to thenuncooperative but is almost never assessed.nOn April 24, 1969, I had the honornof testifying before the late Senator SamnErvin’s Subcommittee on ConstitutionalnRights of the Senate Judiciary Committee.nThe senator was holding hearingsnon S. 1791, a bill “to securenpersonal privacy and to protect thenconstitutional right of individuals to ignorenunwarranted requests for personalninformation.” My testimony ran sevennpages in the transcript, some of it prettynhot stuff if I do say so myself, but I’llnquote only a few lines narrating thenfurther history of the court case.nIn October 1962 the UnitednStates Court of Appeals for thenSecond Circuit affirmed thenjudgment of the lower court. Inappealed to the Supreme Courtnfor certiorari and that appealnwas rejected. It is interesting tonnote that the opinion of thenCourt of Appeals was written bynthe Honorable ThurgoodnMarshall, now a distinguishednmember of the Supreme Court.nIn a recent decision Mr. JusticenMarshall came forward tonprotect the right of privacy ofnthe citizen in his home — atnleast inasmuch as the citizennchooses to possess andnpresumably enjoy pornographicnfilms, Everyone who is devotednto the idea of individual libertynmust applaud Mr. JusticenMarshall for his recent decision.nBut a growing number ofnAmerican citizens are becomingnuncomfortable and even innmany cases almost mutinous inna society that expresses itsnconcern almost exclusively innterms of the liberty ofnpornographers and the privacynof perverts and the conveniencenof criminals. Why, I keep askingnmyself, is a law-abiding citizennunprotected in his home againstnthe irrational and capriciousninquisitions of the governmentnwhen all manner of degraded.n6/CHRONICLESnsuspect, and parasitical gentrynenjoy the express protection ofnour highest courts?nAnd there, as far as I know, thenmatter has stood until now. But a newnwind is blowing, cold and clear from thenmysterious peaks of the Ninth Amendment.n(“The enumeration in the Constitution,nof certain rights, shall not benconstrued to deny or disparage othersnretained by the people.”) I recommendnto all a close reading of The RightsnRetained by the People: The Historynand Meaning of the Ninth Amendment,nedited by Randy Barnettn(George Mason University Press,n1989). This collection of excellentnscholarly and lawyerly studies showsnthat the Ninth Amendment is a sleeper,nour ace in the hole. From 1791 ton1936, as Calvin Massey points out (p.n291), there appears to have been nonscholarly commentary on the NinthnAmendment. A veritable avalanche ofnstudies has appeared since 1981, mainlynin the law journals. This suddennupsurge of interest in an amendmentnthat seemed to defy comprehension forna century and a half may be associatednwith the equally sudden upsurge of thenlanguage of “rights” as shouted in thenstreets since 1960 or so. It is associatednalso, I think, with growing popularndiscontent with a government thatnseems to be pressing against the citizennfrom every angle.nOpen your ears and you will hearnthe vox populi calling for its rights. Andnthese are the unenumerated rights, thenones protected only by the NinthnAmendment: women claiming a rightnto their reproductive function (at thenexpense of the fetus, no less); people ofnall sexes — all three or four sexes nownrecognized by the Bureau of the Census—nclaiming the right to die (at thenexpense of suicide); people claimingnthe right to breathe (at the expense ofnthe next fellow’s right to smoke —nwhich he claims as a right); the right tonpeace and quiet (death to boom boxes!);nthe right to be let alone. In a daynor two of attentive listening you willnhear all manner of rights claimed withnperfect confidence by people who havenno idea what the Ninth Amendmentnsays. And yet when they get to court itnmay be the Ninth, and nothing but thenNinth, that saves them.nThe obnoxious prying of the Cen­nnnsus Bureau is a terrific affront to a rightnthat everyone understands, the one Injust mentioned, the “right to be letnalone,” as the man in the street says.nYou know the argument; “Look, I’m atnhome with my wife and kids, I getnalong with my neighbors, I pay myntaxes, I haven’t done anything wrong, Inhave a right to be let alone, dammit.”nThat is a Ninth Amendment rightnpar excellence and if I should be sonlucky as to be taken to court by thengovernment for my failure to cringenand obey when faced with a censusnquestionnaire, I’ll stand foursquare onnthe Ninth — this time around.nFor the hallmark of a Ninth Amendmentnright is that it clearly antedatesnthe formation of the federal government.nA woman’s right to kill her fetusnis a rather freshly discovered right. Butnthe right to be let alone is universallynseen to be a basic aspect of civil society.nWilliam Pitt the Elder (1708-1778)nsaid it best: “The poorest man may innhis cottage bid defiance to all the forcesnof the crown. It may be frail — its roofnmay shake — the wind may blownthrough it — the storm may enter, thenrain may enter—but the King of Englandnmay not enter — all his forcesndare not cross the threshold of thenruined tenement.”n— William F. RickenhackernMACHIAVELLI, in answer to thenquestion of whether a prince shouldnprefer gold or arms, replied that armsnwere the logical choice since goldncould not always buy a strong militarynbut a strong military could usuallynacquire wealth. This answer had notnchanged three and a half centuries laternwhen Kipling wrote, “Gold for thenmistress — silver for the maid— /nCopper for the craftsman cunning atnhis trade. / ‘Good!’ said the Baron,nsitting in his hall, / ‘But Iron — ColdnIron — is master of them all.'” Nor, asndemonstrated by Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait,nhas another century changed thisnreality.nOn a per capita basis, Kuwait hasnbeen for a generation one of thenworld’s richest countries. Kuwait’s oilnreserves are more than half the size ofnSaudi Arabia’s and twice that of Iraq’s.nIts refinery capacity is also second onlynto Saudi Arabia. It has a fleet of tankersnthat supply not only foreign customersn