Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
I disagree with Griswold only because I think it is not a constitutional issue. And the biggest reason this matters is BECAUSE of the ramifications of that precedent.
Griswold affirmed the belief of many that your rights go beyond the enumerated rights laid out in the Constitution. I don't know why there was any doubt of this fact, since it clearly says so in the 9th amendment.
See post 9.
=========================================================================
Emphasis added - such small details are important - something that the Bush White House totally lost in the screening process.
Bush has taken himself from "near great" to "lessor" on the Presidential rating scale, with these two SCOTUS appointments. These SCOTUS appointments are as sad as outrageous. Bush has been poorly served by his staff, and in fact, Miers was one of the principals. I feel she disqualified herself the moment she accepted Bush's nomination. She should have excused herself when the topic was first breeched if she were actually interested (and I saw reports about her as a possible candidate for over two weeks prior to the announcement). From an ethically perspective, she should have recommended a new counsel to lead the vetting process. Or, she should have immediately and publically squashed such rumors.
That Miers allowed herself to be selected while she was the lead advisor in the selection process was a huge conflict of interests. Nice woman, maybe a fellow conservative and Christian, but she failed the most important ethical test of her career when she ACCEPTED the nomination WHILE BEING PART of the nomination process. Her lapse in legal judgement (or her ambition) has demonstrated that she is UNQUALIFED for the job A new "packaging" job by the White House won't change this.
SFS
I have no problem with state legislation providing that. But I have a big problem pretending such a 'right' is protected by the constitution.
Yes; and he based it on various amendments (private property, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.) -- NOT the pro-aborts' darling, #14.
This doesn't help the anti-Miers obsessives at all.
Well, not objectively.
Dan
Should Cheney have declined Bush's request that he be Bush's VP, even though Cheney was in charge of the VP selection process? Same principle seems to be involved.
I figured as much. Thanks Dan.
Shall I post a Henny Penny graphic...lol?
I can see it now. Because it is not explicit in the constitution, it does not exist in the constitution.
There were many facts of life, liberty and the pursuit of justices which were "understood". There were words which had meaning and did not have to be enumerated.
ie. Marriage is based on "contract law" and is older than the bible. One did not engage in "contract law" with queers.
A man had to have a son (ie; the 1st commandment, "go forth, be fruitful and multiply!") or daughters for heirs. This was to preserve the family, the clan and the tribe.
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.
The real question concerning abortion is not the legality. (That imo is a personal matter.) The real issue is whether it is a federal issue and whether tax money can be used to support it. If the 1st part is no, then the 2nd part is irrelevant.
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. Abortion is something for the states or the provinces thereof to consider (IMO).
Does the constitution protect a state's right to forbid the use of contraceptives by married people? And to hold married people criminally liable if they do?
You've been here long enough to know that a person who tries to be facts into these discussions will be pummeled.
Only for the woman. The man in the marriage has no say in it.
Apparently any right to privacy does not extend to private conversations in the office of a US Senator.
Nicely put, I think. The authors of the Constitution thought the same thing.
It's sometimes known as negative freedom, that our rights are not limited. OTOH, the powers of the government are limited specifically by the Constitution.
No you don't.
She told the group she believed gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as straight Americans, but that she opposed repeal of the state's sodomy law criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct.
okay. Where is it in the Constitution?
I heard Brian Wilson report that....but, didn't he go on to say that Schumer, who also interviewed her, did NOT say she said that?
Just a probably non relative point...but, maybe she DID tell Schumer that and he didn't want to public...so that she would get confirmed w/o that coming out??
Does any of us really trust SPECTER?
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.