Posted on 03/24/2010 1:39:13 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
“If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe”
They don’t have to; the lawyers will bring it up and the court will then address it.
I will thank the Lord if Mrs. Griswold’s diaphragm ends up being the thing that saves us from Obamacare.
I am a frustrated Rock Musician who spends my days working as an attorney.
Justices have said they may review Roe. If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe.
If Roe is constitutional then the Health Care legislation (which puts the government between the citizen and his physician) is unconstitutional.
I would prefer that the argument be limited to the "right to be left alone" as enunciated in Griswold and not use Roe as a wedge to overturn this health care monstrosity.
Roe touches on additional issues of protecting those least capable of protecting themselves, i.e., the unborn or the almost born. The issue in Roe is effectively when the rights of the unborn are vested (a subject that the Supreme Court evaded in the decision).
We need to get this to the Supremes...ASAP..
Thank you but that was not my concern, not concerned of who brings it. The justices can decide to consider or not. If they rule against Obamacare with consideration to Griswold, it would be more difficult for them to overturn Roe, wouldn’t it?
I would be hesitant to use Roe, although since it relies heavily on Griswold, I can see its application. IMHO Griswold is really more directly on point. See post 24.
39] In the final analysis the contention made rests upon a non-existent power in the Federal Government to enact any act deemed by it necessary or desirable to promote the general welfare.
A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 55 S. Ct. 837, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
Legal ping
Thank you. Roe is different in that it harms the unborn whereas Griswold does not. Good distinction.
So you think Griswold can stand on its own against Obamacare and not have impact on a review of Roe?
What instrument frustrated you? Or what in Rock frustrate you. I am a songwriter with a couple of pieces before Alison Krauss’ people.
“the right to be let alone”
That IS the money quote—one that is fiercely defended by progressives when it comes to a women’s decisions about abortion and which is routinely ignored otherwise. It is manifestly inconsistent with their entire “nanny state” project, of which universal health care is merely one component. Until they have arranged for government to meddle with everyone’s life from cradle to grave, they will not rest.
BFLR & BTTT !!
Obviously it will have an impact, but I think the issue in Griswold and the arguments regarding Liberty are more forcefully enunciated in Griswold. Roe was a terrible piece of judicial activism. Griswold, however, touched on the idea that certain liberties are fundamental and were fundamental at the time the Constitution was enacted. Clearly abortion was not a historical liberty, whereas Contraception was.
What instrument frustrated you?
My frustration is not with the instruments, but in the fact that I can't make a decent living playing the darn things. I am a jack of all instruments and master of none. In the course of my life I have played the piano, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, tuba, french horn, saxophone, violin, flute, drums, bongos, acoustic and electric guitars, 5 string banjo, mandolin, electric and acoustic bass, harmonica, ukulele, and native flute.
So how does that get to the attorneys involved in trying to get health care or at least portions of it declared unconstitutional?
Fabulous post, and NOT, to me, a vanity.
This whole argument is why despite being ‘pro life” I have never wanted argue (like many) that there was anything wrong with the “logic” used in Roe v Wade, that we possess an unalienable right to privacy. We DO in fact possess that unalienable right, and we possess other rights too.
In Roe v Wade the problem with the decision was that ANOTHER PERSON IS INVOLVED, the unborn baby. Despite our right to privacy, we do not have the right to murder in private because it tramples another person’s superior and preexisting right. The court just refused to address the point that a fetus is a baby with rights. The court was wrong about abortion, but the idea that we have other rights including privacy is correct.
So we absolutely should maintain that our rights to privacy and free association and even our rights to self-defense and control of our own bodies make it illegal for government to attempt to steal our CHOICE, to steal our resources we need for our health and our family’s health, to direct those resources, to limit those resources, to limit our right to associate with other people to share our resources to care for ourselves, etc. etc.
In concrete example words, if a group of 100 young single celibate men with no real risk of sexually transmitted disease and no risk of insanity and no risk of pregnancy and no risk of drug use all want to get together and pool their resources to use if one of the group develops pneumonia, then it is in fact their right to do so. Very cheap insurance plan for people in that group if they want! No STD, HIV, drunken accidents, drug-induced psychosis, pregnancies, breast cancers, etc, etc. Use of that right, which some would call an insurance plan, which is even memorialized and recognized (not granted by) the ninth and other amendments may not be trampled, limited, regulated, outlawed of otherwise controlled by government, especially the Federal government. (This example is just the tip of an iceberg of examples that would touch on different types of rights.)
People are finally understanding the 10th amendment; and now it is time to raise awareness of the ninth amendment and related issues, and to promote an understanding that WE POSSESS MANY RIGHTS that may not legally be trampled by government.
So thank you again for your great post which raises this issue in a really precise way with citations I previously knew nothing about. More power to you.
(dang, that was long but therapeutic...)
One would hope that they are smart enough to figure this out on their own.
Could not have said it better myself.
Only armed rebellion would have an effect at this juncture ....and that will not happen either
Actually there is a lot that is wrong with the logic used in Roe v. Wade, but inasmuch as they relied on the principle of Liberty as enunciated in Griswold, they were correct that there is a right to privacy, but they took it (for no logical reason whatsoever) to include some kind of fundamental right to abort our posterity. That was never a fundamental right to abortion before 1973 and it was, in fact, a crime in all states at the time the Constitution was enacted.
Griswold was simply distorted to make a traditional crime or moral turpitude into a fundamental Constitutional right by the Roe Court. Roe still needs to be overturned, but Griswold needs to be affirmed.
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.