Gov. Palin has plenary power over these effects on both state and federal levels.
Oh, there is such a right – no question about it. That fact’s been decided by the highest court in the land, and that makes it so.
My only point is: there shouldn’t have ever been such a decision by the judiciary. Far-ranging, wide-sweeping new rights should not be “discovered” to be lurking in the penumbras of existing Constitutional guarantees; they should be written by elected legislators, because that’s consistent with our notion that we’re self-governed.
But sure: you’re absolutely correct. There IS such a right, and it’s not coextensive with Roe.
And you apply this same logic to the Second Amendment, no doubt?
Bricker ver.1: “What we have under federal law are specific rights to privacy in specific areas (no searches without a warrant) but not a generalized, fuzzy, undefined “privacy” right. And certainly not such a right that somehow morphs into the holding in Roe that the first trimester of pregnancy is sacrosant and no law may forbid abortion during it.”
Bricker ver. 2: “Oh, there is such a right – no question about it. That fact’s been decided by the highest court in the land, and that makes it so.”
Do you think if another SC decision came down declaring that there is no right to privacy, we’d get an amendment passed likity-split to give us one? I can’t see the American people accepting that they have no right to privacy - particularly if the case had nothing to do with abortion, and had to do with disclosure of personal information.
And it might not be such a bad idea given the erosion of our privacy in the past decade to propose such an amendment that would enumerate the right and settle the debate once and for all.
Version 1 was talking about how federal law should be interpreted; the context was a discussion about Palin’s ideal answer to “Supreme Court decisions you disagreed with.” I was laying out my view of what Plain said, and should have said, about the current state of the law that she disagreed with.
Version 2 was acknowledging that, as it now stands, the law is clear that there is a right to privacy.
There’s no contradiction. I disagree that a generalized right to privacy should be inferred in any broad manner. (#1) I obviously accept that it has been. (#2)
What’s this heresy?!? Amend the Constitution in a substantive manner by… by… by… passing a resolution in Congress and getting three-fourths of the states to affirm it? Are you mad, man??
Seriously… of course I think that’s the right idea. I’m not against a broad “right of privacy” as a Constitutional guarantee. I’m against that right being crafted by between five and nine unelected, lifetime appointees. If we truly have a commitment to self-governance, then we create substantive law by and through our legislative bodies, not our judiciary.
Mad woman, not man.
It would be really cool if we (the SDMB) wrote and submitted our own Amendment to a congressman for proposal.
I might have to start a thred on it.
Which is where you apparently got confused. Her answer (that there IS an inherent right to privacy in the US Constitution), was in direct contradiction to your view (that there is not). Yet you declared that she didn’t say anything “wrong”.
Of course. The difference you see is between what the law is (there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution) and how YOU THINK it should be (there ISN’T a right to privacy in the Constitution). You just hop back and forth between the two different versions depending on which suits you, or, more importantly, the party affiliation of the person talking.
If that was the whole of your post, I wouldn’t have wasted my time. But, in fact, you posited that Palin was not wrong in saying there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. That is a position that, if held by anyone else but a Republican nominee, you would have savaged to no end.
Might I recommend an Amendment that says that simply because a right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is not protected from governmental intrusion. That way, the people who constantly cry out that “THAT’S not in the Constitution!!!” would know that by listing rights, the founders didn’t mean to limit the protection of other rights not listed.
Something along the lines of: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And so it came to pass: The SDMB Amendment (GD).
The 9th Amendment is a nice idea in principle, but it’s also pretty fucking stupid. All it does is invite argument over what constitutes a fundamental right.
It’s not stupid, it’s a statement of fact. It recognizes what a majority of the founders thought, that we, as human beings, have natural rights, which the government should be unable to infringe upon. The founders realized that by listing a bunch of these rights, some not so bright people will shout “Well, THAT right isn’t in the Constitution, so it’s not protected!!” So they stated what should be obvious, that enumerating some rights doesn’t mean the others shouldn’t be protected.
And of course it “invites” discussions over what is rights should be protected and what would be a legitimate infringement upon those rights. The same way that ANY law, Constitution, or statute does. Simply because there is a discussion to be had about rights doesn’t mean you simply get ascared and refuse to discuss it.
I’m not sure what you are getting at, but I certainly believe that a person has a right to own firearms. There is not a lot of law regarding the second amendment, but what there is, including the case about a year ago, was correct in its result as far as I know (I have not read it).
And I also believe that driving is a right, not a mere privilege. Not that courts agree with me. But my view of people’s rights is much more expansive than the Courts.
I couldn’t think of a better way to spend a life than to argue over what are fundamental human rights.
Nor I, but that’s not for judges to decide. It’s for the people, and judicial activism is the least democratic way for your rights to be determined- even though it has almost always gone my way.
Then what a good thing you came along to ask your clarifying question!
No kidding. Without me, you’d be incorrect and blinded by partisanship.
Send check to:
Hamlet
c/o MacArthur Fellows
…
That’s where we disagree. I do think it is the job of judges to decide disputes that are before them and in appropriate cases make decisions on what human rights are. Not what they should be, but what they are. And I think that privacy is an excellent example. At the founding of this country people did not speak of a right of privacy, but over time the concept developed that “secure in papers” “no quartering in homes” etc were privacy, and that you couldn’t be “secure in papers” with wily nily search and seizure.
Sure, but extending the right to be secure in one’s papers and in one’s home don’t necessarily logically extend to the right to abort a foetus.
I did not. Until you mentioned it, I didn’t know that Gov. Palin had, either.
I absolutely agree with you that it was pathetic that she was unable to name another disagreeable court case, and I believe her to be totally unfit to hold the office of the Vice President. What I’m annoyed about is how many people have said that she “couldn’t name two supreme court cases”.
I meant to use my own knowledge as a demonstration of the fact that there is a big difference between “name another case” and “name another case you disagree with”, not to excuse Gov. Palin’s ignorance or shortcomings.