 You're saying about abortion in the Constitution that it doesn't, you can't, the Constitution can't list every single right that you would have. But it's implied in the principles in the Constitution. But people were telling me, well, I tried to compare it to slavery that the states can't just make slavery legal again. They said, well, there's an amendment. But the amendment, wasn't the amendment put in there because of the history of what had happened and the war and everything? So they wanted it to be blatantly explicit this time because it seems like it was obvious. If they had been following the Constitution from the beginning, they wouldn't have allowed it. That was a big mistake. So that's why they added that amendment. You don't need one for abortion. Yeah, I mean, of course, we don't need it for abortion. It's ridiculous, you know, and what are they going to add one for contraception? And then we'll add one for gay marriage and we'll add one for, you know, that I have a right to choose whatever gross story I want to go shop in. Right. They should be there should be an enumerated right. They should be an enumerated. It's just they're just being idiots. I mean, that's that's, you know, or they don't understand what enumerated rights are. And then the other thing I get, and this is for the most sophisticated ones, they said, oh, yes, but the enumerated rights in the Ninth Amendment are supposed to be the rights that Americans had when the Constitution was signed. There were no cars when the Constitution was signed. So I don't have a right to drive my car. There were no I mean, it's so concrete bound, anti intellectual, anti historical, because they're not looking at the history. And yes, the the the the amendments around slavery was added because for forever, the Constitution was interpreted as not applying to slavery. And they wanted to make clear that that the the federal government that the Constitution applied to the states, and it didn't just apply in the 14th Amendment, didn't just apply to the federal government. So if the states violate rights, if the state violate the bill of rights, then the federal government's job is to prevent them from doing that. So so that's what happened after after civil war. But yeah, it's just there is a Ninth Amendment because and if you read the Federalist paper, because Madison was complaining that with the bill of rights, only these rights would be protected. But but but and look, there's only one right. This is the other thing because the the the argument could be well, but the left wants a right to a job and a right to food and a right to. But there's only one right. And what the bill of rights is doing is breaking that up, that one right into its constituents, into its applications. But the one right is the right to life. That's it. There's no other right. The right to liberty, property, pursuit of happiness are all applications of the right to life. And then the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, all the other amendments are just application of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, breaking them down. And but you can break them down to, yes, I have a right to act. And then you could say you have a right to act. In this way or in that way, you know, every one of those is a constitutes a right. But it's it's it's silly to numerate that all. But I'm glad they numerated some of them, because that's the only reason we have some protection. Right. Thank you. All right. There is Charles. We had a Charles. Cool. All right. Let's see who is next. Daniel, I guess, following up on the same thing. How how can the Supreme Court back to back rule the way they did on abortion and rule the way they did on the right of states to decide who can and can't own a gun for self-defense that nowhere in anything that I read were they talking about the right to life or individual rights or anything else. It's all about, well, this justice said that and this 14th Amendment should be interpreted this way and so forth. But no one goes back and says, why do we have any of this? No, there is no conception of individual rights in the court. To the extent that there's a conception, it's a religious conception of natural rights, God-given natural rights. But there was no concern. I mean, look, I said this many times because I found it hard to believe the first time I heard it, but then it made sense and I verified it that Anthony Scalia, the darling of conservatives, the most intellectual of all our judges and so on, believed that individual rights were nonsense on stilts. He agreed with Jonathan Bentham. They just, where did they come from? You know, they meant nothing. And I think that, and if Scalia believed that, one of these other guys, I think the only person who has a conception of rights is Thomas. But Thomas' conception of rights is religious and very narrow and very dogmatic. And if you read his concurrence on the road case, you'll see he brought, there's no right to gay marriage. The founders would be horrified by gay marriage. So of course, they shouldn't be gay marriage. There's no right to contraception. There was no contraception in 1789 when the constitution was ratified. So the Ninth Amendment doesn't apply to it. So he's an originalist in that sense. I encourage people, if they're interested in this issue of interpreting a constitution and how to do it, to read Tara Smith's book, God, I can't remember its name, of course, unconstitutional, unconstitutional law. Maybe somebody can look it up and tell me, but how objectively you would, you need to interpret the American constitution without rewriting it, without being an object, just being an objectist. How do you, what is a proper legal approach to interpreting a constitution? And it's not textualism, originalism. She critiques these. And it's not, you know, subjectivism, whatever I feel like. It's based on an objective interpretation of the constitution. And she has a whole book on that. So I encourage you, I'm encouraging you to. Judicial review in an objective legal system. Yes. Thank you. So it's called Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System. It's by Tara Smith, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas in Austin. I highly encourage you to get that book if this is of interest to you, how you would interpret that, how you would interpret it in, you know, the Ninth Amendment. And she places it in the context of a proper definition of individual rights. And you can't otherwise, you can't interpret what they're trying to do in the Constitution and what the Bill of Rights actually means without a proper conception of the Ninth Amendment and what the Bill of Rights is actually trying to do. And look, you know, I admit that I would like to rewrite the Constitution. I think the Constitution is flawed and I think it could be better. But that's not my argument. My argument is that even within this Constitution, the proper understanding of individual rights, you would have a right to an abortion. And, but it might need what the Constitution is lacking. And this is, this is the great tragedy, I think, more than anything. Is a definition of individual rights. Is an explanation of what the Bill of Rights is there for. Is an explanation, a more explicit explanation of what the unenumerated rights are. And whether they viewed as that is static thing, only the things that exist right now or whether they viewed it as a dynamic thing with these. So that something explicit like that would be a great feature. There is, there's a project that John Stossel is working on that you might find interesting where he's interviewing people, or not so much interviewing people, is asking people to send him short videos of how you would rewrite the Constitution. What changes would you make to the Constitution? And I think he's going to air that video on July 4th. And I submitted a video that I think he's going to play where basically, you know, basically say this, that a definition of individual rights is necessary. And then I talk about the four separations that I'd like to see in the Constitution, separation, a clear separation of state from ideas vis-a-vis state and church. And then a separation of state from economics, a separation of state from science, and a separation of state from education. So I've submitted that to Stossel. I assume he's going to use it. He always uses my stuff. So that look for that July 4th out of this Stossel channel. Thank you. Yeah, thanks to you. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support. By going to Patreon, subscribe star, locals, and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content. And of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.