norml21 - Page 33

 people '_ within the meaning of the Ninth
 Amendment. Connecticut cannot
 constitutionally abridge this fundamental
 right which is protected by the Fourteenth
 Amendment from infringement by the States.
 381 U.So at 499.
 More recently, the Supreme Court again relied upon the Ninth
 Amendment as the basis for judicial protection of rights not
 explicitly listed in the Constitution. In Richmond News a er °
 Inco v. Vir_Li!ki__, 448 UoS. 578, 579 (19801 (plurality opinion),
 the State argued that the public had no right to attend trials
 since this right could not be found in the text of the
 Constitution. Chief Justice Burgerp writing for the plurality,
 dismissed this argument based on the Ninth Amendment and its
 historical underpinnings° Ido at 579-80. The State's argument,
 said the Court,
 did not escape the notice of the
 Constitution's draftsmen; they were concerned
 that some important rights might be thought
 disparaged because not specifically
 guaranteed. It was even argued that because
 of this danger no Bill of Rights should be
 adopted. Seer e.g_L< The Federalist No. 84 (Ao
 Hamilton) .... But arguments such as the
 State makes have not precluded recognition of
 import:ant rights not enumerated.
 Id. at 579. The Court noted that James Madison perceived the
 need for some sort of constitutional _'saving
 clause," which, among other things, would
 serve to foreclose application to the Bill of
 Rights of the maxim that the affirmation of
 particular rights implies a negation of those
 not expressly defined. See 1 Annals of Cong.
 33