Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
And that a "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution...
Nothing more yet...
Guess Cheney should resign too, based on your requirements. He selected himself.
Privacy may be an interpretation "according to Griswold decision", but other laws such as unlawful seaches, illegal quartering of troops, illegal to witness against oneself all lead to the same direction and conclusion.
Exactly. There is a right to privacy inherent in our right to a private life, liberty, and private property.
It need not be enumerated,
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The above amendments limit the authority of the Federal government.
Note that some powers are prohibited to the States. The power to ignore the constitution and its amendments is one of those so prohibited, according to Article VI.
"Everyone who is sure of Miers is, by the same standard PLUS MORE, sure of Roberts."
And some of us who are very sure of Roberts are very unsure of Miers
Unless he becomes a woman.
Oh brother. Have you tried reading it?
Here is a start. Look at how many times the word "right" appears,
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II - Right to bear arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not always. Many birth control pills cause the uterous to form a hostile environment and won't allow a fertilized egg to attach. Certain IUD devices do the same thing.
Contraception is not always about denying a willing sperm meeting a willing egg. It's about denying a fertileized egg a place to nest and continue development.
If pro lifers were honest, any Roe decision would also affect Griswold.
"do people actually have a problem with Griswold v. Connecticut, which upheld a married couple's right to use contraception?""
There is a HUGH AND SERIES difference between (a) agreeing with the RESULT of a case, and (b) agreeing with the LEGAL REASONING used to reach the result. The problem is that peole who disagree with a decision because they don't like the legal reasoning can be BORKED by those who claim that means they don't like the result, either.
For a discussion of the key dissent in Griswold, see this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502605/posts
I say no. The four women will all still be married to him in Nowhereistan, but he will be married to only the first in the United States. If he tries to claim simultaneous marriage to any of the others in the United States, that police power will march him to the jail double quick.
Can someone tell me how to report abuse?
Roberts slippery as regards privacy? Or brilliant?
He didn't provide the opportunity to be attacked on the topic, agreed with privacy in principle but didn't go so far as to indicate that he agreed that the privacy "penumbra" sanctions abortion on demand.
LOL...you must be feeling frisky
The nomination of Miers is particularly troubling, since the man in charge of vetting her stood to gain a promotion if she was ultimately picked by President Bush to fill the O'Connor vacancy.
That stands to reason, if you get my drift.
So the same principle that allows a state to outlaw the use of contraceptives allows a state to look the other way while a doctor assists in the killing of a citizen?
"The logical conclusion to your argument is that anything that happens in private is legal.
Obviously that's not the case. If murder is illegal even if it occurs in private. Then so is sodomy, if the state declares it illegal. There is no right to sodomy in the constitution."
Murder involves violating someone else's rights and thus is not protected by the right to privacy.
Not to mention it is simply not anyone's business what couples do.... I am in favor of smaller less intrusive government , not a government that regulates every private detail of life.... I don't understand how conservatives could feel otherwise.
Having read Bork, above, I disagree with Bork, and he knows better. The slippery slope argument is not an intellectual one, but a moral one. A mind as sharp as Bork's surely knows the difference, and can surely locate the pivotal error without having to condemn all arguments as wrong because they contributed to an unacceptable conlusion. He his disingenuous here.
Are you saying the police do not have a right to put a criminal suspect under surveillance at his home?
Well, sure, anyone who backed Roberts would have to be more sure of him than Miers...because there really was more known about him...plus, he had been confirmed by the Senate before....(if that matters to anyone here).
But, I guess what I am asking is: How sure can any of us be about anyone? I keep hearing people say "if only" about Luttig, Owens, and others...if only they were picked "we would be SURE"...and I say, not necessarily.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Miers is confirmed, and the first case that comes up, Roberts goes left, and Miers goes right?
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.