Maher Admits Naivete, Thought "Right to Privacy" in Constitution (Coulter)

MRC ^ | 10:20am EDT, Monday April 28, 2003 | BrentBaker

[fight_truth_decay]

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well- known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: "This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: "I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights." Maher then conceded: "You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to "privacy" was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the "penumbra" of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.

On March 28, Maher won the MRC's "Ashamed of the Red, White, and Blue Award" at our "DisHonors Awards: Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2002." His winner, from a November 1, 2002 appearance on CNN's Larry King Live:

Maher: "We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We're oblivious to suffering."

King: "And so we are hated because of this?"

Maher: "Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

HBO's site for Real Time with Bill Maher, which has aired Friday nights at 11:30pm EDT/PDT: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/

Starting this Friday, Maher's show will be replaced for ten weeks by On the Record with Bob Costas. But the time slot will still feature left-wing anti-war activists: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins will be on Costas' first show this Friday.

When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030428.asp

[AmishDude]

It's a partial shadow,

That was my point. To this day, I find it astounding that they used the word "penumbra" which indicates the flimsiest of grounds on which to base a decision.

[CobaltBlue]

>>The question is whether privacy is a natural right, and therefore included in Amendment Nine.<<

Which, we should recall, reads as follows:

>>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.<<

The Federalists argued that enumerating certain rights would lead to some taking the position that the rights which were not enumerated were not protected. See, e.g., Madison in Federalist 84.

History proves that their fears were well-taken.

As much as I love Scalia, I think he's trying to twist the Constitution around in order to get rid of abortion.

If Congress passed a law requiring unmarried women to have abortions, and limiting married couples to two children, I bet he'd find a Constitutional right to privacy PDQ.

[CobaltBlue]

The way they figure that the US gives less is by comparing it to GDP. We give by far the most, dollar-wise, but we also have the largest GDP, so smaller countries give more percentage-wise.

This is true even if you include private foreign aid, as well as tax-funded foreign aid.

My argument is that we contribute immeasurably to world peace through military spending, but that's not the kind of argument they like to hear.-g-

[js1138]

Ammendment nine is my personal favorite. I have to confess I passed the ripe old age of 50 before taking note of it and its implications. Now I take it as my duty to call it to the attention of conservatives.

[CobaltBlue]

>>For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized.<<

This argument wouldn't exist if it weren't for Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade drives some conservatives so crazy that they've rewritten constitutional history in an effort to get rid of it.

Sorta like Brown v. Board of Education drove Southerners crazy.

But for Supreme Court opinions causing trouble, I still think that Plessy v. Ferguson caused the worst trouble.

Or you could argue that the trouble all started with Marbury v. Madison. Nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly state that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review, to declare laws unconstitutional.

[CobaltBlue]

I made the mistake of arguing that the Ninth Amendment prohibited something-or-other in a Political Science class in the late 1970's. I was informed that it was a dead letter! Sort of like the Second Amendment.

Glad to see that both have been resurrected.

[Puddleglum]

The Coonstitution is a blueprint for how to govern, how the state governments and the fedewral government should interact. The Bill of Rights helps clarify when the FedGov should jump in, and when the matter should be left up to the states. Certainly there are many rights not mentioned in the Constitution. That simply means they're up to the states to adjudicate.

One can believe in a right not mentioned in the Constitution and still believe that the Texas case is not a Federal issue.

[Puddleglum]

sorry 'bout the typos

[Ebenezer]

"A right to 'privacy' was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the 'penumbra' of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution."

If people argue that the Constitution is too vague (hence the lame-brained idea of searching for "penumbras" and "emanations"), they should simply take the time to read "The Federalist Papers" for the best commentary bar none, written no less by men who had a role in developing the charter. Think of it as a catechism of constitutional doctrine.

It disturbs me that interpretation of our founding document relies on hocus-pocus, agenda-driven opinions rather than sound legal scholarship.

[CobaltBlue]

If the Texas (no, make that California) legislature passed a law prohibiting families from having more than two children, would it be constitutional?

Similarly, if Congress (under Hillary, of course) passed a law prohibiting families from having more than two children, would it be constitutional?

If your answer to either question is "no," please explain your reasoning.

[Anamensis]

YES, we give the MOST in foreign aid....(because we have the most to give,) but per capita is how they get this statement I believe.....and then they usually compare it to how much countries spend on defense and use that against us, too.

Ironic, isn't it, since the countries that spend less on defense are usually able to do so because they are crouched under the umbrella of the US military, such as Canada, Mexico, Europe, Japan, et al.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"Next thing you know, someone's going to say that the phrase "seperation of church and state" isn't in the constitution either!"

Are you being sarcastic?

[Sonny M]

Actually, he's right, the first amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establisment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof". Interpreting it, liberally, turns it into separation of church and state in an extremist manner, taking it, in its original context, it basically means, Government won't establish its church or an official religion for the people, as european countries did in those days, it also would mean, that government wouldn't step in if you wanted to practise your religion as you see fit.

[CobaltBlue]

>>where do I look to find the figures on this?<<

www.google.com

If you aren't familiar with google, it doesn't use Boolean language, that is, you don't need to use AND, OR, NEAR or NOT. If you want to use a phrase, put quotation marks, like this: "foreign aid".

Just put in your search terms. I would suggest the following:

"foreign aid" "united states" gdp

Or try:

"foreign aid" "united states" "per capita"

[Sonny M]

I would say no, based on the first amendment (religion), the 4th amendement (which starts people shall be secure in there persons...before it mentions regualer objects),also the 5th amendment, in regards to liberty (coming out from natural law), also the 8th amendment (as any penalty prescribed, would be unduly harsh), not to mention the 9th amendement, and the 14th amendment. Now granted, parts of some of them may be a stretch, but on the whole, a very good case can be made.

To follow up, similar laws have been passed, but in regards to deadbeat dads, and those laws have been upheld, but there was reasoning in those briefs about why they are in a different lot then the general population.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

If he was not being sarcastic, then no, he isn't right, as that phrase IS NOT in the Constitution.

[Puddleglum]

If the Texas (no, make that California) legislature passed a law prohibiting families from having more than two children, would it be constitutional?

Similarly, if Congress (under Hillary, of course) passed a law prohibiting families from having more than two children, would it be constitutional?

If your answer to either question is "no," please explain your reasoning.

Let me answer by first making it clear that "constitutional" does not mean "right", "fair", or "reasonable." It means, is it allowed by elplicit language/meaning in the Constitution. It accords with they government the Constitution describes. Second, I'd say that when Congress or state legislatures pass something, they are us, the collective system of government the Constitution put in place. It's easy to portray the Congress as some alien entity when they pass a law we don't like, but that law comes out of the system of government we have. It is the voice of the majority, which with few exceptions, usually gets its way by the very design the Constitution sets out.

Now I agree that the Constitution and judiciary are set up to act as a yardstick to determine when government exceeds its proscribed bounds. That's why I think the Constitution needs to be read so literally. Otherwise it's a kind of rubber ruler than stretches and twists and never gives you a fair measure of anything.

So, my answer would be that it's the responsibility of the legislatures (our representative government) to negotiate the social vs individual interests of all our liberties when that proportion is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. it's up to our representative government to define these liberties (such as "privacy"), whether by making the Constitution more explicit (adding an amendment), or by passing a law that can be clearly tested against the Constitution.

So if a two-child law was passed, I'd scour the Constitution and precedent law; if there was explicit Constitutional basis to strike it down, I'd start a drive to amend the Constitution and to recall all elected officials who voted such a sinister idea.

Short answer, I think the right to procreate is fairly well understood to be a tenet of Christianity (see Thomas Aquinas on Natural Law) and that proscribing a limited number of children would violate the 1st amendment.

Sorry to be so long winded but I needed all those words to say what I think about a complicated issue like this. Any way I slice it, I don't see "privacy" (whatever it means) as a constitutional right.

[fight_truth_decay]

Trade is worth something in this senario..not just aid.

This OECD chart shows that for 2001 in terms of raw amount of dollars in aid, the U.S. is the largest donor, followed by Japan.

Link

[fight_truth_decay]

International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers. Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development. $1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000 Source: Dr. Carol Aderman, Aid and Comfort,Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (Aderman admits that there are no complete figures for international private giving. Hence these numbers may be taken in caution, but even with caution, these are high numbers.)

[anncoulteriscool]

I geuss you could says we've gone from "if it feels good do it" to "if it feels good it must be constitutional"......sarcasm!