Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
"The advocates of a constitutional right of privacy speak as though that right were expressly stated and enumerated in the Constitution. But the text of the Constitution does not contain the word "privacy" or the phrase "right of privacy."
Any idiot that doesn't understand that our rights do not have to be enumerated to exist is not worthy to sit in judgment of anything other than perhaps 'the best of breed' at the county fair.
You said it well. Thank you. He is just wrong.
The right to privacy does not afford you the right to rape, rob, defraud, or murder in private. That the pro abortion court ruled that privacy allows for abortion is wrong, but all too often the 'right' is so anxious to shoot down Roe that they are willing to have our legitimate right to privacy as collateral damage.
The phrase "right to privacy" is absolutely the wrong language. It is merely an acknowledgement that the federal government has no authority to act and a deferral to state or local law.
I'm in full agreement. One of the more insidious things activist courts have led to is the willingness of cowardly legislators to abdicate their political responsibilities on hot button issues like abortion to those courts and then use the courts' decisions for cover. It also has led to the emasculation of the political process by the electorate. The idea of the Constitution as a mechanism for HOW to govern[the three branches] has been largely lost. Elitists prefer activisdt courts. So do craven politicians.
That being said, I'm not sure that emotionally politicized as it has become [in no small measure due to the way it was achieved, via the courts], abortion can ever be "non-fedreralized" again. Note the problems with parental notification and consent for abortions of minors where non-parental adults transport minor girls to abortion friendly states to circumvent either criminal charges or parental responsibilty for the impregnator.
I would urge you to reread the 4th Amendment to understand what the Founders meant by a 'reasonable' search.
The fact that some cop or DA thinks it is reasonable does not make it so. Complying with the requirements of the 4th -- to obtain a warrant based on a sworn affidavit and probable cause and detailing the search and what is to be seized, is what makes it reasonable. Any search not complying to that is unreasonable
I'm sorry to say this but your understanding of the Constitution is as bad as that of the judge who wrote that article.
The Constitution and the BoR guarantee nothing.
The Constitution tells the government their duties and the limits of their authority. The Bill of Rights isn't so much a listing or declaration of rights as much as it is a reminder to those in government what they must not do and it is a partial list at best.
So, if I understand you correctly, if someone commits an evil act in private I must surrender my right to be left alone by the government?
Look, I want abortion ended too. Roe v Wade was a horrible twisting of the language and our rights to justify an incredible evil. No one has the right to rape, rob, defraud, murder, or abort another just because it is done in private. But that doesn't mean that we do not have a legitimate right to privacy.
In reversing Roe v Wade, let's attack it honestly and not disparage our natural right to be left alone by government.
In one respect you are correct. Reasonable cause is not for the DA or law enforcement officer to decide. They prepare affidavits which are submitted to judges for scrutiny and, upon agreement, the issuance of the warrant. Unhappily, there are far too many instances where the legal scrutiny was cursory and the LEOs burst into the wrong location or entered with a totally inappropriate degree of force. But, that's another issue...
areas in which the national government may not intrude. The problem is the use of the "right of privacy" is to strip the states of the police power.
Suspecting you're interested in "natural rights", here's an article that disusses same in the context of the creation of the Constitution and the relationship between individuals, States and the Feds under same: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa326.pdf
That is the only line in any of your posts that I have to quibble about and I think that this just may have been typed in haste and that we actually do agree.
Congress can make just about anything illegal but that doesn't make it right and I don't think that is what you meant. Campaign Finance Reform comes to mind.
Just a quick summation to eliminate confusion, DG.
Our rights are inherent by virtue of our creation. They impose no duty or cost upon another to provide them for us and they cannot be used to impinge upon or deny the rights of others.
That's why there can be no such thing as a right to a car or health care or safety. Each of those 'rights' would impose a cost or a duty upon others. Abortion cannot be a 'right' either because it denies the most basic of all rights of another -- the right to life.
So which according to you which amendments were meant to apply universally, that is to protect the individual citizens against both state and federal government? Because I've yet to hear about a case in which a court directly extended any of the first VIII amendments to the states.
Yes, actually all of the first VIII Amendments contain "individual rights" but without the XIV Amendment (and the incorporation doctrine) they only protect you against the federal government.As to the IX Amendment:
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 529-530, Stewart, J., dissenting
"The IX Amendment like its companion the Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered," United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 , was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annual a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder."
To construe current day rulings to have anything to do with the Framer's intent is folly.
While 'exigent circumstances' -- a woman screaming or massive amounts of blood, etc. -- can allow the police to enter a home to see if a crime is being, or has been committed, they do not allow a search of your desk or safe. That still requires a warrant.
A warrant separates reasonable and unreasonable searches, current rulings to the contrary notwithstanding.
As a side issue, since the SCOTUS has ruled more than once that the police have no duty to protect us as individuals (such as the screaming woman inside the house) can they really have to power to enter without a warrant? I'm not saying that a good cop wouldn't want to help or wouldn't risk censure for kicking down the door if he thought someone needed help. But just as rights have concommitant responsibilities, shouldn't certain powers flow from a specified duty? If the duty is denied, can the power exist?
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Yes, the 4th does contemplate searches without warrants and deems them to be unreasonable.
A reasonable search required a warrant and you couldn't get a warrant without meeting the conditions mentioned.
I know that is all lost today, but it seems pretty clear that is what was intended.
This type of thinking is what is wrong with our country. The American people have been brainwashed to the point that they think the Constitution is a useless piece of paper and the only rights 300 million people have are those that 12 elitist agenda driven politicians in black robes say we have.
They have convinced the majority of us that we are too dumb to read and comprehend a document and the history around it, that has been around over two hundred years.
The Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution and the Constitution became the law of the land .
Every state that ratified it agreed to and accepted the provisions contained within it.
Just because some guy in robe hasn't pronounced his blessing on all of them doesn't mean that they don't exist.
The rights are there even though we have let them be,ignored,abused, twisted, and perverted for political gain and personal agendas.
As far as the right to bear arms is concerned most of the sates also have it in some form in their state constitutions.
Also BTW from looking at this page it seems we have been brainwashed to think that abortion is only a privacy issue.
For some of us it is not. For some of us it is about the right to life of an innocent human being.
If someone's right to swing their fist ends a another's nose then why do we allow a baby in the moment of birth to have it's brain punctured so people can make money off their body parts and their mother won't be inconvenienced.
Careful. You'll upset the emanation of a penumbra fans.
Provisions that applied exclusively to the federal government.
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.