Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

In article <djvSj.6992$LQ4.6716@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Deadrat <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:481a6f07$0$30192$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
> 
> > 
> > "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> > news:x-B6C7F7.21142501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <481a69cb$0$30157$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >>> Would be a bit difficult if, for example, General Praeteus decided
> >>> to move
> >>> the next US election up a few months as himself being only
> >>> candidate. 
> >>
> >> You think he could make that decision, with any real effect?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, as he has the mechanisms to do it if he really wanted to.
> > Dictators love your type of sheep like thinking. 
> 
> The mechanisms exist.  (Read Sinclair Lewis' _It Can't Happen Here_.)
> But there's no evidence that Petraeus (let's at least spell his name 
> correctly)

I thought he was referring to the Praetorians, from the SAndra Bullock 
movie "The Net."

> or at any other officer of the US sworn to uphold the 
> Constitution has the slightest inclination to use those mechanisms.

Which is why his argument is akin to saying that I'm dangerous because I 
could run over people with my car tomorrow, if I wanted to.