Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Washington Post Doesn't Have a Clue About Government under a Written Constitution
Newsbusters (brand-new website) ^ | 3 August 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 08/04/2005 12:59:39 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
This post is not just for its subject, but also to introduce NewsBusters, a website that went live yesterday. It is a project of the Media Research Center, and its subtitle is, "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias."

Not only will Freepers probably appreciate that website, but with your penchant for factual research and being ahead of the curve, some of you may see fit to contribute to that site (with the consent of its editors).

Enjoy.

1 posted on 08/04/2005 12:59:39 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Very good column - a good antethesis of Dems calling Roberts an "activist judge" if he were to act like Clarence Thomas. In other words, if someone is not an activist, they are therefore an activist, because an activist judge is a constructionist to them and a conservative constructionist would prevent additional activism, therefore they are activist.

Or something like that.

2 posted on 08/04/2005 1:06:51 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"[citations] The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

Estelle T Griswold v State of Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1681.

Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.


3 posted on 08/04/2005 1:08:23 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The Washington Post has no idea about morality, law, government, etc............
4 posted on 08/04/2005 1:09:19 PM PDT by bmwcyle (We broke Pink's code and found a terrorist message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Senator Christopher Dodd made the same, obvious mistake on “Meet the Press” this weekend when he referred to the (non-existent) “Privacy Clause” in the Constitution.

Hey, CB, I think FR should have a contest for the most creative interpretation of the 3rd Amendment. Since it isn't much use anymore as written, we should try to think like liberals and see what rights, penumbras and legal umbrellas are contained within it so we can breathe life back into it and update it for the 21st Century.

For example, I find an inherent right to privacy in the 3rd. Since government can't house soldiers in your house against your consent, that clearly implies a right to privacy.

Likewise, a right to abortion could be found here, if you re-interpret "soldiers" to mean "fetuses" and "homes" to be "wombs", then no fetus can be quartered in a womb without the consent of the owner.

Makes as much sense as Raich, methinks.

5 posted on 08/04/2005 1:11:19 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Unwritten but assumed are the words "unless we need to". It's a penumbra.
6 posted on 08/04/2005 1:23:44 PM PDT by vollmond (Head back to base for debriefing and cocktails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Did everyone notice what the writers did here? They assumed that this right was found somewhere in the Constitution, without reading the document to look for it.

For the ten thousand, nine-hundred and twenty seventh time, a right does not have to be listed in the Constitution in order to exist.

Ninth Amendment, anyone? Anyone? *crickets chirping*

The opponents of the Bill of Rights were precisely on target about the dangers of enumerating rights in the Constitution. It's a wonder that the Ninth has protected us as long as it has, but now it's evident that it may as well be dead and buried when we've got so-called "conservatives" ignoring it.

7 posted on 08/04/2005 1:28:31 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Ninth Amendment, anyone? Anyone? *crickets chirping*

Here's the problem. The 9th Amendment was written well before the 14th. Prior to the 14th, the 9th was meant as a constraint on federal power. The feds were limited in their ability to curtain rights not enumerated in the Constitution - but states were free to regulate non-enumerated activities (and a lot of enumerated ones, as the bulk of the Bill of Rights only applied to the feds). That is also why a properly constrained federal government required a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol - but once Prohibition was repealed, state and local governments were free to continue restricting or prohibiting the sale of alcohol. Repeal of Prohibition did not grant a federal right to drink that superceded state powers to regulate such.

Now, after the 14th was passed, the 9th went from a constraint on federal power to an EXPANSION of federal power - because with Griswold, the feds decreed that a FEDERAL, non-enumerated right existed under the 9th, and with the 14th it had the power to overturn state laws. This turned the intent of the 9th on its ear and set a very dangerous precedent for federal power.

So be careful cheering the abuse of the 9th to create federal rights. It should only be intended as a constraint on federal power.

8 posted on 08/04/2005 1:37:08 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The quote used was, as the article says, from the Dissent by Justice Hugo Black.

John / Billybob
9 posted on 08/04/2005 1:39:19 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I don't get it. Are you saying that under an originalist interpretation, a State could, as long as it took the form of a "republic," establish a Taliban-style total-surveillance police state and the Federal government couldn't say "boo?"

If I'm mistaking your intent, please clarify.


10 posted on 08/04/2005 1:44:54 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"[citations] The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

This is of course the classic case of mistaking light for dark. There is no need for "penumbras" and "emanations" in a nation where the state is properly confined to its enumerated powers and duties. The government of our Founders had little power and means to violate our privacy.

Trying to keep us safe from Leviathan by finding such "emanations" is futile.

11 posted on 08/04/2005 1:45:23 PM PDT by Haru Hara Haruko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
I don't get it. Are you saying that under an originalist interpretation, a State could, as long as it took the form of a "republic," establish a Taliban-style total-surveillance police state and the Federal government couldn't say "boo?"

Well, basically, from what I understand, the Bill of Rights was meant as a constraint on the federal government, not the states. That is clearest in the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall pass no law...".

And the purpose of the 9th and 10th were to put strict limits on what the fedgov could do, not to enumerate additional rights at the federal level.

This is consistent with Supreme Court decisions before and after the passage of the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th, the amendments of the Bill of Rights were extended to the states one-by-one by Supreme Court decisions.

12 posted on 08/04/2005 1:50:10 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Haru Hara Haruko
The government of our Founders had little power and means to violate our privacy.

Althought true of the federal governemnmt, this statement is patently false concerning the state governments. They had all kinds of very strict laws concerning religion, sexual practices, etc.

13 posted on 08/04/2005 1:52:06 PM PDT by KayEyeDoubleDee (const tag& constTagPassedByReference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 4thAmendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is about as close to a "right to privacy" that our constitution gets.


14 posted on 08/04/2005 2:07:53 PM PDT by free_at_jsl.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Let me add something that may be well known in this forum.

When the last signature was added to the July 4, 1776 document titled Declaration of Independence, 13 colonies of England were cut loose and existed as individual sovereign states.

The failures of the Continental Congress led, eventually, to the Constitution of the United States of America. Notice it is titled UNITED STATES, reflecting their sovereignty.

The U.S. Constitution was created with the intent of each sovereign state to surrender a specific and measured part of its sovereign power so a FEDERAL government could exist to bring some uniformity in the relations between the states and to perform functions on behalf of those states which no single state could accomplish alone.

Articles 1-7 set up that mechanism and put restraint on Federal power.

The ammendments 1-10 were adopted (over great struggle) to broaden the restraint of Federal power over individual liberties. The clear intent of the Ammendments is to keep FEDERAL power from encroaching on individual rights. In fact, the Constituion and its Ammendments confer NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.

You will note the long time it took for the original 13 colonies to ratify the Constitution...precisely because great opposition still existed at the state level to surrendering ANY power to a Federal Government.

15 posted on 08/04/2005 2:13:05 PM PDT by plangent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: plangent
That's a very good point to put into the perspective of the originalist debate. Although the main problem I have with it is that the Amendments are written differently, as if some were to apply just to the fedgov and some to the entire country. The First, after all, begins with "Congress shall pass no law..." - so that is clearly a constraint on federal power but not on states. But the other amendments do not start that way.

But I guess it's like anything else, SCOTUS will interpret them the way they want to and there ain't much in the short or mid term we can do about it.

16 posted on 08/04/2005 2:20:34 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; jude24; P-Marlowe

Excellent article, CB.


17 posted on 08/04/2005 2:31:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plangent
Actually, the Constitution was rather quickly ratified, less than two years, though it was almost defeated in both New York and Virginia, and the lack of either of those states would have severely damaged the new Union.

It was our original "constitution," the Articles of Confederation, which took ten years to get ratified. The hold-up had nothing to do with the rights of states generally. Instead, it was over the unlimited claim of Virginia to unlimited western land. Until Virginia relinquished that claim, Maryland refused to ratify the Articles.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Washington Post Doesn't Have a Clue about Government Under a Written Constitution"

18 posted on 08/04/2005 2:44:44 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Will President Bush's SECOND appointment obey the Constitution? I give 95-5 odds on yes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Congressman: At the end of your piece you state: "Certainly there are copies of the Constitution somewhere in the offices of the Washington Post"

I would not jump to that assumption.

19 posted on 08/04/2005 2:47:39 PM PDT by Former Proud Canadian (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Senator Christopher Dodd made the same, obvious mistake on “Meet the Press” this weekend when he referred to the (non-existent) “Privacy Clause” in the Constitution.

The "Privacy Clause" is not in the standard edition of the Constitution. You have to get the Emanations and Penumbra edition.

20 posted on 08/04/2005 2:58:49 PM PDT by kennedy ("Why would I listen to losers?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson