# Credibility of the Hollywood Left **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2002, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983 "2002-12-11T11:49:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/121 "2002-12-12T18:13:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\*Two of them would be Jews. I think not. \*\* Jews can’t be fascists? Since when? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/122 "2002-12-12T18:24:12Z")
Um, I would say that, at least for their time, the Founding Fathers were neither liberal nor conservative but _radical_. The idea of democracy and self-rule was pretty wild. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/123 "2002-12-12T19:29:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > A lot of people “call” themselves “conservatives”, but are NOT. So, who makes the call, on who is a true conservative, and who’s just a poseur? You, I guess. > [@](#): > > Anyone who “calls” themselves a “conservative” and does not believe in the United States government, does not believe in the Constitution, and does not believe in the Bill of Rights, is no conservative!!! Then conservative Christians aren’t conservatives, due to their continuing war on the Establishment Clause, despite the reality that most Americans calling themselves conservatives are evangelicals? > [@](#): > > any more than someone who calls himself a fundamentalist christian but yet does not know the Bible, does not believe the Bible, has not studied the Bible, and does not know or understand what the Bible says. Since, IMHO at least, fundamentalist Christians don’t understand the Bible, regardless of how thoroughly they have read it, I guess there **aren’t** any fundamentalist Christians. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/124 "2002-12-12T21:34:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*[country talk] > Arguing with a libertarian is kinda like wrasslin’ with a pig. After a few hours ya realize the pig _likes it_. > [/country talk] \*\* It also hurts when the pig(Libertarian) is the one who is rational and consistent in his arguements. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/125 "2002-12-12T21:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*Hey, you’re the one who said the ACLU doesn’t understand the 9th Amendment. How are they getting it wrong, in your view? > > And more to the point, how does the 9th Amendment fit with your (apparent) view that the Constitution is inflexible, except by further amendment? Do you consider the rights listed in the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of all the rights we have? Or do you take the 9th Amendment at face value and accept that there are other rights not specifically listed, but which we still retain (such as, perhaps, a right to privacy)? > > (And on another matter, why _didn’t_ you answer my earlier question about legalization of marijuana?) > > (And does supporting the 2nd Amendment make me a “conservative”? Even if I also believe in social security, a progressive income tax, environmental regulation, the estate tax, corporate regulation, anti-trust laws, the Civil Rights Act, etc., etc., etc.?) \*\* Please go read what these men said and thought. There are thousands of volumes, and I cant tell you everything they said. Anyways, you will want to read it for yourself in their own words. The Bill of Rights was not exhaustive in any way, but were required or there would be no United States, since the states would not ratify the Constitution unless there was a Bill of Rights. Yes, it was mentioned at the time, that by listing some unalienable rights endowed by our creator, there might be attempts made to make limitations on freedom, but in the end, since everyone agreed that the federal governemnt could NEVER ever do anything that it was not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution, they had to let it go and get started with the country. Tom Jefferson had no problem with marijuanna, so why should I? In fact, the founding fathers never outlawed any substance. When the americans wanted to outlaw booze in the early 1900’s, they knew it would require a constitutional ammendment to outlaw any substance since the federal government had no authority under the constitution to outlaw substances. Social security? Income tax? No!!! you are NOT a conservative, but you are probably “sometimes” a nice fellow, and you deserve to be listened to and argued with. (Those others who oppose the Constitution, we dont even need to listen to since we will never understand each other or agree on anything). ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/126 "2002-12-12T22:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by you with the face \* > \*\*by **Susanna** > This sounds a little bit like religious dogmatism to me. How do you know what the Founding Fathers–hallowed be thy name, 'til Kingdom come–thought centuries ago? Wouldn’t a _true_ conservative strive to keep the country’s government _just_ as the Framers envisioned? Which was, in all likelihood, white and masculine? \*\* Because they wrote down exactly what they thougt, for us today to read and see for ourselves. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted. All their letters, diaries, journals, debates, papers, are all there for anyone today to find out exactly what they meant and thought. Go to a government deposit library, and ask to see the papers and writings of the founding fathers. And read them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/127 "2002-12-12T22:06:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, it was mentioned at the time, that by listing some **unalienable rights endowed by our creator,** there might be attempts made to make limitations on freedom, but in the end, since everyone agreed that the federal governemnt could NEVER ever do anything that it was not specifically authorized to do by the Constitution, they had to let it go and get started with the country. This may be a nitpick but the bolded (by me) part of your quote is actually from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/128 "2002-12-12T22:10:47Z")
Ah, so then the conservatives who fight to keep marijuana illegal are freedom-haters? And the Hollywood liberals who want to legalize marijuana are conversely freedom-lovers? > [@](#): > > Please go read what these men said and thought. Oh, I might have read a thing or two along the way. But you still haven’t told me whether you think we have any right to privacy. Or why you think the ACLU doesn’t understand the 9th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2002, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/129 "2002-12-12T23:52:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _This sounds a little bit like religious dogmatism to me. How do you know what the Founding Fathers–hallowed be thy name, 'til Kingdom come–thought centuries ago?_ > > Because they wrote down exactly what they thougt, for us today to read and see for ourselves. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted. And yet only the True Conservatives interpret the document in the correct way. Right. Too bad we can’t call up Jefferson & Friends and find out whose interpretations are right and whose are wrong. For the love of the Holy Forefathers who gave their lives so that we might have everlasting SuperWalmarts and all-you-can-eat salad bars, this discussion sounds so much like a religious debate that it’s scary. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/130 "2002-12-13T01:23:38Z")
You seem to have skipped over my question, **Susanann** ; let me ask it one more time: Is the right to privacy one of those unenumerated rights mentioned by the Ninth Amendment? What are some other rights the Framers had in mind as retained by the people? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/131 "2002-12-13T02:03:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\*Is the right to privacy one of those unenumerated rights mentioned by the Ninth Amendment? What are some other rights the Framers had in mind as retained by the people? \*\* I don’t think the courts explicitly relied on the 9th Amendment in Roe v. Wade. I don’t know if they mentioned the 9th Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. Do you know? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/132 "2002-12-13T02:53:01Z")
**december:** > [@](#): > > I don’t think the courts explicitly relied on the 9th Amendment in Roe v. Wade. I don’t know if they mentioned the 9th Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. Do you know? They did, yeah. It was one of the guarantees creating a penumbral right of privacy: > [@](#): > > The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) (citation omitted) Further, Justice Goldberg wrote a three-justice concurrence to “emphasize the relevance of [the Ninth Amendment] to the Court’s holding.” _Id._ at 487. Goldberg then went on to describe the history of the Ninth Amendment, saying in part that: > [@](#): > > [w]hile this Court has had little occasion to interpret the Ninth Amendment, “it cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174. In interpreting the Constitution, “real effect should be given to all the words it uses.” Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 151. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery and may be forgotten by others, but since 1791 it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment, which specifically states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be _construed_ to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Emphasis added.) _Id._ at 490-492 (“Emphasis added” in original). Finally from Goldberg: > [@](#): > > Although the Constitution does not speak in so many words of the right of privacy in marriage, I cannot believe that it offers these fundamental rights no protection. The fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family – a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization – surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one, which are protected from abridgment by the Government though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. _Id._ at 495-96. **Susanann** , what’re your thoughts on this? (And **december** , _Roe_ does talk about the Ninth Amendment in the context of the _Griswold_ holding and concurrence, even though Blackmun ultimately founded the right of privacy “in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action.” _Roe v. Wade_, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/133 "2002-12-13T05:09:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Susanann said:There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted. Have you read **all** of these books so that you have a full and complete understanding? Do you think that the written word has only one possible interpretation? > [@](#): > > Originally posted by Zoe > Two of them would be Jews. I think not. > [@](#): > > response by LonesomePolecat: > Jews can’t be fascists? Since when? I must confess a basic ignorance about Jewish Fascism. I am willing to learn about it if you choose to start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/134 "2002-12-13T05:36:38Z")
—Because they wrote down exactly what they thougt, for us today to read and see for ourselves. There is no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation, no doubt, no unknowns, nothing is unclear in what they wanted.— True, but then, they didn’t live today, and its pretty hard to figure out how they would see any given controversy today. They also didn’t all agree with each other. It’s also hard to claim that there is no misrepresentation or misunderstanding when honest scholars today can and do debate the founders, and plenty of people misrepresent their views all the time, including many conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2002, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/135 "2002-12-13T06:01:17Z")
**Apos:** > [@](#): > > They also didn’t all agree with each other. This is the most important point, I think. You wanna go by the intentions of the Framers? Which Framers, and when? Hey **Susanann** –given your encyclopedic knowledge of the constitutional literature, I’m sure you’re familiar with _Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution_ by Pulitzer Prize-winner Leonard Levy, right? > [@](#): > > The process of seeking original intent is elusive, if not illusive, because the fundamental text may be ambiguous and vague, or overarches a particular situation. In a sense the text, whether Constitution or Talmud, is always unfinished even as it is perpetual; and subsequent teachers or judges must expound its meaning. Their exposition can be a legitimate extension of the original, because the text fixes not only a system but an ongoing process. –Levy at _xiv_. > [@](#): > > James Madison, Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, rejected the doctrine that the original intent of those who framed the Constitution should be accepted as an authoritative guide to its meaning. “As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution,” he wrote in a well-considered and consistent judgment, “the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character.” The fact that Madison, the quintessential Founder, discredited original intent is probably the main reason that he refused throughout his life to publish his “Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention,” incomparably our foremost source for the secret discussions of that hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787." –Levy at 1. Hmm. Interesting topic, and a hijack. Think I’ll start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983/136 "2002-12-14T03:45:11Z")
> [@](#): > > by Susanann > > “Stars like John Wayne, Richard Boone, Clark Gable, Carol Lumbard, Robert Stack, Fess Parker, **George Reeves** , Barbara Stanwick, etc, all were conservative, very **pro-gun**. The male stars were real men, and the women were all able to take care of themselves too.” Not so fast on George Reeves. He is no longer pro-gun. He is pro-dead with a single gunshot wound to the head. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/credibility-of-the-hollywood-left/141983.md?page=6)