Posted on 11/03/2005 5:33:11 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum
After meeting with Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the judge had convinced him that he believes in a right to privacy.
"Although he didn't go quite as far as John Roberts did in his hearing, he satisfied me that he recognized this to be one of the unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and he led me to believe that he felt that it was an established right," Durbin said. "I think he believes in the fundamental right to privacy."
During a 40-minute visit in Durbin's Capitol leadership office, the pair chatted about baseball, their families and growing up as first-generation Americans. Durbin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to get to know Alito as a person, as well as to understand his views on key legal issues.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Turbin ping.
Good Catch! Isn't it funny how Turbin Durbin is SPECIFICALLY LOOKING for a jurist to even believe in "unenumerated rights"?
Hmm...seems like a consistent case of the leftist looking for things that don't exist in the Constitution (or taken things away that do exist) to meet their own political agendas.
Sad.
So I guess he won't mind if I buy a 'MACHINE GUN' today and keep it in my bedroom.
~~Durbin Mocking off~~
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If rights do not exist independent of government, then you agree that the government has control of what rights you have and can recind them if it desires to do so.
i have noted several dems making similar statements. i think they are setting this up so they can whine and complain about him betraying them after he gets confirmed and they know he will be confirmed.
GWB gets to rally his base if they drag this out, and he wins a long, hard-fought battle for social conservatives.
If the Dems have any brains, they'll whine a little and ASAP approve of Alito, then get to complain about all of the wonderful, constitutional stuff the Supreme Court does to save the nation. (please, please, please....)
He really puts emphasis on the Dick in Dick Durbin.
Alito was Baptized by liberal outrage and Confirmed by Bork, Levin and many more conservatives.
Enjoy.
Does the unborn child also have a right to privacy? Should it not have a right to be secure ?
Of course I'm familiar with the 9th and 10th Amendments, but I thought the leftist RATs have been telling us infanticide is a Constitutional right.
Now we learn that it is actually one of many rights NOT contained therein, but instead one of those rights retained by the People covered by 9 and 10.
Maybe I'm making a mountain out of nothing, but I thought this admission represents a dramatic shift in how the left justifies the legality of infanticide.
If enumerated rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have enumerated rights...
..has anyone asked AJ Durbin for a copy of the famous letter he got from a so called agent?
Doogle
The 9th Amendment is extremely misunderstood and frequently misrepresented.
All it is saying is that the Rights named by the Constitution are not to the exclusion of any other unnamed right. What it does not say, however, is that such unnamed rights cannot be limited by specific acts of legislation.
These unnamed rights do not have the full protection of the Constitution, nor does their absence from the Constitution automatically nullify them as a right. It is simply saying that we have full rights unless otherwise specifically noted. It merely states that our rights default in the affirmative.
I can see your POV with that. Earlier statements were somewhat unclear. When I first saw this thread, I was going to respond with the 9th amendment as well.
I'd also like to make the point regarding the general disdain that many conservatives have towards the "right to privacy" is misdirected. I would think that when you consider the 4th and 5th amendments as well, that you'd agree the founders of this republic were favorably disposed towards privacy.
The only way to combat the leftist lies it is to forbid them to equate privacy with abortion. But I don't know haw far that can go when the Stone Age Media is complicit in the lie.
A transparent attempt by Durbin to set off outrage similar to what happened with the Miers nomination. Pathetic.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Those powers are laid out in section 8 of article 1. It is a limited list but there is but there is the catch-all ...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
So, as long as the laws are in comportment with a legitimate use of Article 1 power, then the federal government would be within its lawful right to regulate an unenumerated right. But it should be required to justify such limitations.
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.