"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet! Trust Me!
Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
- bump -
A distinction lost on most, but is a material distinction.
Is everyone so SURE of Justice Roberts?
The part where it says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
People have a basic right to be left alone by the government unless they are hurting someone. It's a key conservative principle.
"Youse guys are gonna LOVE this Harriet! Trust Me!
To be fair to RWR8189, it was Brian Wilson that drew out the report to include the Griswold decision re: A right to privacy in the constitution..
Wilson then went on to point out to the audience that it was Griswold that was the underlying decision for Roe V. Wade...so, IMHO...it was Brian Wilson that set this line of thought on this path...
I think Wilson was just assuming that the reason that Specter would mention it, would be to possibly reassure moderates...
Abortion certainly hurts someone else.
IMO
Yes. Because it is the genesis of a Constitutional law doctrine that epitomizes judicial activism. Roe was built on top of Griswold. All of the justices, FWIW, did not like the CT law. But the dissent felt thatthe court had no business making law, rather only of interpreting it.
Griswold represents one case where the Court decided to "make law." One paragraph from the dissent by Justices Black and Stewart ...
While I completely subscribe to the holding of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, and subsequent cases, that our Court has constitutional power to strike down statutes, state or federal, that violate commands of the Federal Constitution, I do not believe that we are granted power by the Due Process Clause or any other constitutional provision or provisions to measure constitutionality by our belief that legislation is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of "civilized standards of conduct." 5 Such an appraisal of the wisdom of legislation is an attribute of the power to make laws, not of the power to interpret them. The use by federal courts of such a formula or doctrine or whatnot to veto federal or state laws simply takes away from Congress and States the power to make laws based on their own judgment of fairness and wisdom and transfers that power to this Court for ultimate determination - a power which was specifically denied to federal courts by the convention that framed the Constitution.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=381&invol=479
"You've been here long enough to know that a person who tries to be facts into these discussions will be pummeled."
Well not to be pummeling, but BibChr's response, while correct about Roberts, does not really address the question for discussion (which of course has almost no facts to discuss), which is that Ms. Miers approves of Griswold. If so, that's bad. If not, it's good.
"Abortion certainly hurts someone else.
IMO"
Exactly. That's why the right to privacy does not and should not apply to abortion.
Yes.
Sink you are fighting a losing battle, these people dont give a damn about facts. Rush and ann told them not to support her and by God they are doing it no matter the facts.
Everyone who is sure of Miers is, by the same standard PLUS MORE, sure of Roberts.
The Constitution does not contain all of our rights. In fact James Madison and other framers specifically did not want the Bill of Rights included in the Constitution, as they worried, correctly, that in the future, people and government would take the position that the rights in the Bill of Rights were our only rights.
OTOH, the Constitution does emumerate specifically the powers of government; what is not enumerated, the government may not do.
>>>>>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?
Which consitution, federal or state (and if the latter, which state). There is no right to contraception in the federal constitution, nor should there be. It should be a state matter, regardless of whether you want it legal or not.
patent
So you think that the state has a legitimate power of search and seizure in the case of contraception between consenting adults?
I heard that too.
well, this answers the "constructionism" question... as well as the "has she read the Constitution?" question.
Regardless of what one thinks about "privacy" vis-a-vis the government or the circumstances of the Griswold case, the "rights" cited were not enumerated in the Constitution, and the decision was incorrect.
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.