Posted on 11/03/2005 5:33:11 AM PST by Veritas et equitas ad Votum
> A transparent attempt by Durbin to set off outrage
> similar to what happened with the Miers nomination.
If the libs get serious about trying a reverse-psych
praise-Alito-to-death strategy, expect them to also
blatently lie about conversations in the private
nominee/Senator meetings.
> Pathetic.
Well, it's Durbin, after all; cabin boy for the
disloyal opposition.
Well stated.
Many of the Founders felt it was unnecessary to list any of the rights of man in the Constitution, since that document's purpose was to set forth a form a government and limit its power to certian specifics. The Constitution adopted by the states contained no Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was admendments to the Constitution passed by the first Constitutional congress and ratified by the states.
Rights posessed by citizens at the time of the adoption of the Consitution continued after the adoption and after enactment of the Bill of Rights. That is what the 9th Amendment means.
A right to privacy existed prior to the adoption of the Consitution. And it continued afterwards.
The problem with Griswald v. Conn is that the Supreme Court failed to conduct the proper analysis of the privacy right. Instead, it made up a new interpretive model that allowed new rights to be "seen" in pnumbras and emanations. That is just another way of saying the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, which is tyranny.
A proper examination of the right of privacy would require an understanding of what that right meant in 1787. I suspect that analysis would result in the conclusion that a state legislature could prohibit the sale of contraceptives.
That is why the Supreme Court had to make up a new right of privacy, if the Court was to actually function as a super legislature as it has now been doing for 45 years.
I believe I have a right to privacy--but that right doesn't extend to the protection of killing, rape, child molestation or any number of activities that are against the laws of society.
Then where are the limits on the legislative bodies that prevents them from crushing unennumerated rights?
I've just started readind M.Levin's book and I'm having some difficulty understanding this subject and need some helpful clarification.
What I understand to be fact: Our rights are endowed by God not the Constitution. The Constitution is a limit on Govt. telling it what it may, must and can't do,and not a list of rights granted to the people. The 9th amendment states that merely because a right wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn't mean that it wasn't endowed to us by our Creator. Then,as you said, we have the right to privacy by default.
How can the govt. limit privacy then if it's not given that power in the Constitution?(or is it?) As you said our rights default in the affirmative and I believe that the Govt.'s ability to limit them default in the negative.
You said "How can the govt. limit privacy then if it's not given that power in the Constitution?(or is it?)"
State legislatures have all power except what a state consitution prohibits it from exercising and what the federal Constitution restricts the states from doing [coining money for example].
The federal congress has no power except what the Constitution allows it to do.
All rights are subject to reasonable regulation by government.
Does a state legislature have the right to prohibit sales of contraceptives under the traditional right of privacy? Probably. Does the federal congress have that power? Maybe.
But the door was slammed on those questions by the Supreme Court's invention of the new privacy right.
The only thing I'd object to in your analysis is that our rights come from God.
While most here probably believe that to be true, from a Constitutional point of view, the origin is not relevant.
People have rights, regardless the source, and the government they form exists only to secure those rights.
Individuals CHOSE to cede some of their rights to the government in exchange for some certain provisions, such as the formation and maintenance of an army, and the establishment of courts to punish people who violate the rights of a person or people.
Read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat for more on this.
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm
(Though he agrees with you on the origin of rights being Divine).
Also, read "No Treason: Constitution of No Authority".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html
"All rights are subject to reasonable regulation by government."
You, sir, are one of the most dangerously uninformed people I can remember reading on here, aside from the open-borders mafia.
I'm not understanding how "the new privacy right was invented" if it exists uennumerated.
Just so you know I'm not trying to defend the roe v. wade decision, I do feel that a right to privacy doesn't justify the murder of the unborn.
Thank you to those attempting to clear this up for me.
"I'm not understanding how "the new privacy right was invented" if it exists uennumerated."
The new right to privacy was invented by the Supreme Court out of thin air in the Griswald case. That privacy right was and is not the same privacy right that existed at "common law" prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
"You, sir, are one of the most dangerously uninformed people I can remember reading on here, aside from the open-borders mafia."
That's pretty funny.
Lets see if I can think of an example of what I was explaining. Hummmmm. How about the "unalienable" right to life that is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. You would say that right connot be "reasonably regulated" by the legislature?
Then that would make you an opponent of the death penalty, because it would be unconstitutional, correct?
Maybe you can think of a better example? Name one fundamental right that connot be reasonably regulated by our elected representatives.
For some reason, I have spelled cannot "connot" twice in my previous post.
Further supporting my claim, you have based your statement on the phony premise that the Declaration of Independence is law.
Then, you say a concept is unconstitutional because it violates the Declaration of Independence.
Keep writing, you're almost as entertaining as the Democrats!
Wow! You actually think that Americans didn't enjoy a right to privacy before Griswold?
They have to go for a filibuster, otherwise their rabid, knee-jerk leftist base will stage a revolt.
On the other hand, a filibuster attempt will almost certainly trigger the Constitutional optional.
They're caught between a rock and a hard place.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I said: "Rights posessed by citizens at the time of the adoption of the Consitution continued after the adoption and after enactment of the Bill of Rights. That is what the 9th Amendment means."
You disagreed with what I said.
How is what I said different from what the 9th Amendment says?
You said: "Further supporting my claim, you have based your statement on the phony premise that the Declaration of Independence is law.
Then, you say a concept is unconstitutional because it violates the Declaration of Independence.
Keep writing, you're almost as entertaining as the Democrats!
Wow! You actually think that Americans didn't enjoy a right to privacy before Griswold?"
Maybe I should write in Latin. You clearly do not understand English.
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.