RE: the 9th, I think more precision is needed-it's still too easy for a court to reject certain things as "not rights."

I think there should be an amendment that in essence makes it unconstitutional to ban any action which does not negatively affect another human being, with maybe a bit more specificity on what "negatively affect" means. But the anti-drug lobby will never let that pass, and the RIAA/MPAA might have problems with it too. (And it should be clear that it only refers to people, NOT corporations or organizations. They should have rights, but not the same rights as individuals-look at what the S.C. did to campaign financing.)

The problem with the 9th amendment is that it's far too vague. Without specific regulation, the court will always move in the direction of taking away rights.