EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR. BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.]. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett, PaulrnGottfried, Christine Haynes,rnE. Christian Kopff, ].0. Tate,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rnJacob Neusner, John Shelton Reed,rnMomcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices;rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright © 1996 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for S59.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street,rnRockford, IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnofhces. POSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChmmck’s, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, IL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not rrecessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.20, No.I2 December 1996rnPrinted in the I liiited SiaW=. of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn MulticulturalismrnWhile George Watson (“Don’t Give UsrnIndia,” September 1996) is essentiallyrncorrect in his critique of multiculturalism,rnhe misses the mark in his interpretationrnof a passage from Paradise Lost.rnWatson cites the lines in which “Columbusrnfound the American so girt / Withrnfeathered cincture, naked else and wildrn. . . ” as evidence that Milton held thernCaribs as “gloriously innocent beforernEuropeans came to corrupt them, muchrnlike Adam and Eve at the Fall.” On therncontrary, Milton implies that the nearnakedrnAmericans are as tainted withrnAdam’s sin as the explorer who discoversrnthem. It is not the quantity of clothesrnthat counts but the fact that one isrnclothed at all. Adam’s sin is seen to pervadernall times and all cultures, stainingrnall of humanity, and one should not berndeceived by the appearance of innocence.rnMilton offers an anticipatoryrndebunking of the Rousseauian “noblernsavage.”rnAll of which leads me to my ultimaternpoint, namely, that multiculturalismrntends to ignore just these sorts of universalrntruths: we all are sinners; our ancestorsrnhave oppressed and been oppressedrnin turn; we all dwell in the threshold ofrnthe charnel house, and yet we all arerncalled to redemption; we are summonedrnby love and beauty. I do not know whyrnmulticulturalists exaggerate the differencesrnof color, creed, and language whilernthey ignore or disparage the universalrntruths of the human condition. Perhapsrnthey act out of a perverse hatred of anythingrnthat smacks of authority, in whichrncase they are like Milton’s Satan whosernidentity is his hatred of God. It is a miserablernexistence to be defined by whatrnone hates rather than what one loves—rnwhich is, I suppose, indifferent consolationrnfor those of us on the losing end ofrnthe culture wars.rn—Hayden HeadrnIrving, TXrnOn the NinthrnAmendmentrnIf George Carey is correct in his review ofrnMarshall DeRosa’s The Ninth Amendmentrnand the Politics of Creative jurisprudencern(September 1996), then ProfessorrnDeRosa is justified in his concern thatrnthe judges might misapply the NinthrnAmendment, as they have other generalrnphrases, such as “due process” andrn”equal protection.” In recent years, thernjustices have indeed taken it upon themselvesrnto become “statesmen,” who seerntheir mission as “problem solvers” for arn”changing society.” Of course, such wasrnnot the role of the judiciary envisionedrnby the Framers.rnBut the Ninth Amendment is not arnthreat, as Professor DeRosa fears. To therncontrary, this long-dormant clause of thernBill of Rights may become the antidoternto unlimitied expansion of federal power,rnas was no doubt intended. As Madisonrntold his colleagues in urging them to supportrnthe Bill of Rights: “I believe that therngreat mass of the people who opposed itrn[the Constitution] disliked it because itrndid not contain effectual provisionsrnagainst encroachments on particularrnrights, and those safeguards which theyrnhave been long accustomed to.” As therndrafting of the Bill of Rights (Madisonrnreferred to them as “exceptions to therngrant of power”) progressed, it becamernclear that a list of rights would becomernawkwardly lengthy. But Madison acknowledgedrna problem that any listing ofrnrights would pose: “It has been objectedrnalso against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumeratingrnparticular exceptions to therngrant of power, it would disparage thosernrights which were not placed in the enumeration;rnand it might follow, by implication,rnthat those rights which were notrnsingled out, were intended to be assignedrninto the hands of the General Government,rnand were consequently insecure.”rnThe solution? The Ninth Amendment,rnwhich states: “The enumeration in thernConstitution, of certain rights, shall notrnbe construed to deny or disparage othersrnretained by the people.”rnI believe that this clause, rather thanrnbeing a further conduit for expansion ofrnfederal power, is our primary way ofrnchecking it. Since it is the people themselvesrnwho retained these rights, however,rnit is the people who would logicallyrndefine them. It is obvious that Hamiltonrnwas much too optimistic in Federalist 78,rnwhere he expects the Court to side withrnthe will of the people in defending tradi-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn