Posted on 10/17/2005 3:43:34 PM PDT by RWR8189
And that a "right to privacy" exists in the Constitution...
Nothing more yet...
duh, I guess you hit the abuse button. Never had to do it before.
"I would like to know where any right exists in the Constitution. The Constitution of these United States is nothing more than a list and enumeration of specific powers of the general government."
Some rights are in fact explicitly mentioned in the amendments and some are implicit.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There are arguments made by some religions and cultures that any form of contraception is morally wrong. It doesn't even have to be after conception. The Catholic Church, for example, is against condoms.
At the other extreme, there have been cultures that practiced infanticide -- such as Sparta and, more recently, in China (girls).
The line has been drawn from before conception to after a live birth. This question has been with Man probably since the beginning. Even if Roe is overturned, it will not end the debate -- or the struggle over what the Law should say in this matter.
Did you happen to watch Sen. Coburn on C-span 2 this evening? He was giving a LIVE talk to a Young Republicans group.
"Griswold may be the case used for RvW, but that doesn't make Griswold wrong"
I disagree. Connecticut had a law and the SCOTUS struck it down usurping power reserved to the state. Don't confuse results with how they were achieved.
"Well who is the arbiter then?"
It depends on the issue. In the Griswold case, Connecticut was the rightful arbiter. Now it's up to the SCOTUS to decide. They gutted the Constitution and found privacy rights where they did not exist.
Maybe Miers feels the same....about putting a fence around Griswold...
after all, it WAS Brian Wilson that went from Specter's remark, to Griswold, to Roe V. Wade....it wasn't Specter.
I trust Specter about as far as I trust slick Willie.
So now you are just left to question, are you the sucker or are they?
"Are you saying the police do not have a right to put a criminal suspect under surveillance at his home?"
That is correct unless the police have good cause to believe the person has committed a crime that warrants taking away the right to privacy.
This usually takes a court order but that can be waived in time sensitive emergencies.
"Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
They can sit outside his house, though.
Why do you claim that Connecticut was the rightful arbiter and the SC had no right of review. Which privacy rights did they find that don't exist in the constitution? Do you argue that no privacy rights exist in the constitution? Have you actually read the Griswold decision in its original, rather than just rely on what it's detractors say about it? What do you think the fatally wrong argument is?
I don't advocate stopping contraception. I just want everyone to be honest about the whole conception thing.
There is always some amount of uncertainty.
Introducing large amounts of uncertainty is destabilizing. Not saying a Miers seating would be destabilizing, just making a general comment, and certainly the selection process is a bit unstable, and I think that can be traced directly back to the degree of uncertainty.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if Miers is confirmed, and the first case that comes up, Roberts goes left, and Miers goes right?
Depending on the underlying issue in the case, judicial restraint does swing both right and left. There is enough complexity that labeling is a waste of time. But I hear you, what if each swung "opposite" from what the conventional wisdom said they would do. Liek som mnay other things, we'd discuss it, shrug, and go have a beer. ;-)
My point is conservatives will twist one way as long as they get their outcome and twist another on the same subject to get a desired outcome that is opposite what they just fought so hard about.
That is true...and logical that one would be LESS sure of Miers...
BTW..off topic, sort of.
ALL TEXANS---remember the election in November has the resolution to have marriage be designated to man-woman only, please do not forget to vote.
The problem is that the Ninth does not give any power to the federal courts to over rule a state law.
The rights are "retained by the people". It is a factual determination whether people have "retained" a right. When a state law is evidence that they have not, there is no overriding it by anyone in the federal government.
No state law has ever been nullified by a federal court for Ninth Amendment reasons.
I'd like to see Griswold overruled just so this idea that the Ninth is a grant of power to the Federal government would be put to rest. Madison said when he proposed the Ninth that it was to prevent the unenumerated rights from being " assigned into the hands of the General Government". Which is exactly what happens if the federal courts use the Ninth as a souce of their power instead of a limit upon it.
If true, there's the ball game. Turn out the lights and someone remember take the picture of the Gipper down and store it away. Twenty-five years of effort wasted on a quota crony.
Do you ever, ever think and not just KNEE-JERK! As pointed by several, there are a number of rights to privacy in the Constitution.
Do you agree the aforementioned adumbrated rights under the bill of rights are privileges of the citizens?
But the 14th does.
Nope. I had tube on CSPAN-1, and just now flipped to Baseball. Was it a good presentation?
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.