Forget the fact that said degree probably gives a broader education and more useful skills than a degree in say , Marketing. Throw in the fact that only 27% of degree holders are employed in their major field and that pretty much destroys any arguments that exist against the Humanities. Not that the Right cares about facts.
[Just in case it wasn’t clear, I was not personally trying to denigrate a humanities degree. The price tag at my alma mater, on the other hand…]
Outside of the fact that I think we should all have equal rights, this is pretty much where I stand too. You want to marry your partner? Same sex? Have at it, affects me not one bit. And if it DID some how affect me in some way, I would still support your right.
I’d argue that not only have they been ineffective, the trend for decades now (though I can’t quite put a date on it, as I’m waffling between 1992, 1994, and 2010) is to really only focus on the federal level, especially the Presidency. Democrats have lost a least a thousand seats at the state and local levels and frankly that’s where the most important changes keep happening, especially when the federal legislature is being made ineffective. It’s one reason why I get angry at the blame cast at those voters who didn’t vote Clinton in 2016 as being the cause for the current situation. If your strategy is to put everything on one person or office, it will eventually fail. And as far as I can tell, the Democrats have spent three decades making their entire strategy revolve around the Presidency at all costs.
Where’s the word privacy? That provision is all about protecting things and property.
“Secure in their persons”?
You can be perfectly secure in your home and your person.
You just won’t be allowed to close your window shades.
I don’t see how being “secure in my person” prevents, say, the government from snooping in my medical records, or viewing logs of my phone calls. “Effects and papers?” But those aren’t my effects and papers, they belong to my doctor and my phone provider.
I guess I don’t really know where they stand. Right now, there seems to be a lot of discussion about student loan forgiveness. If that has less traction in the Democratic party than I realized, then I stand corrected. [remainder of my thoughts deleted so as to avoid hijacking 
]
Moderating:
Lots of hijacking and almost-hijacking going on in this thread for awhile now. Please drop the discussions about relitigating the 2016/2020 elections, Elizabeth Warren’s role in the current composition of the SCOTUS, student loan debt and all else except what pertains to the subject in Alito’s draft opinion.
Thanks.
And hey, we’re not seizing or searching anything! Just looking at what you do! And in 1787 it was understood that your neighbors could tar and feather you for being immoral, and they’re not the government, they’re private citizens.
/s
I mean, you’re saying if the court chooses to ignore its many precedents on protecting rights that are not clearly enumerated, right?
I was speaking of the Privileges or Immunities clause. To my knowledge, no majority of the court has ever protected a general, fundamental, unenumerated right with the Privileges or Immunities clause.
The Crandall case, cited earlier, did not find a general individual right to travel. The court found an individual right to travel to the capital, ports-of-call, land offices, sub-treasuries, postal offices, and revenue offices; the logic being that the federal government’s establishment of such offices for public use constitutes a grant of privilege by the United States to its citizens. I doubt the Chase court would rule against a fixed tax on businesses who import day laborers across state lines; if I recall correctly, a later court upheld such a law when confronted with Privileges or Immunities concerns.
The case of Oyama et. al. v. California (332 U.S. 633, 1948) found that the State’s escheat of two parcels of land from a minor American citizen, on account of his father’s Japanese nationality and a State prohibition on alien land ownership, violated Oyama’s privileges as an American citizen. While Wikipedia cites this as an example of the Privileges or Immunity clause protecting an unenumerated right, the actual footnote of the opinion (p. 640, Id.) cites 8 U.S.C. 42 (now 42 U.S. 1982) where Congress explicitly gave all U.S. citizens “the same right, in every State […], as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” This law is clearly Congress enforcing the Equal Protection clause, that is, an enumerated privilege to equal protection of the laws; it does not technically protect the general fundamental right to property should a state somehow deny that right to its white citizens. And the opinion is very clear that the underlying constitutional provision is the equal protection clause.
~Max
The reading of Crandall is not correct–it explicitly states there is a general right to travel, its examples about how the Founders assumed you’d be able to travel to the capitol to exercise political rights was a justification, not the “only applicable scenario.” Plus, there is literally no enumerated right to “travel to the capitol” in the Constitution either, so even if that is what they held, it is still an unenumerated right.
You also might look to Saenz v Roe, there’s like 15 cases dealing with right to travel and Saenz and several others specifically state that there is a right to travel, whose origins are not particularly important or clear (they note that such a right was even mentioned in the Articles of Confederation, so may simply be a right always assumed and thus valid), and that the 14th Amendment allows a federal court to strike down a law violating an individual right to travel through the mechanism of the 14th Amendment.
So in that sense the Texas bounty for citizens turning in people who perform or have had abortions makes sense, I suppose.
Still don’t like it.
I would say it’s quite certain, actually.
Do you think a state could criminalize someone coming in to the state with the intent to drive someone out of the state to receive an abortion? (assume abortion is illegal in the state where they pick a person up)
It seems the Supreme Court specifically allows protesting outside of abortion clinic employees’ homes:
I wonder how Alito would judge the constitutionality of a law requiring abortions for families with more than 3 kids. Or a law requiring the use of contraception.
It seems to me that, if you are trying to define the right to abortion without considering it as intricately tied to the right of bodily integrity/medical decisionmaking/privacy, you must reject the right to abortion as tied to those rights when it is mandatory rather than outlawed.
The right to free speech includes the right not to speak (Barnette, Wooley). In rejecting a right to abortion, doesn’t that require there to not be a right to npt be forced to get an abortion?
I was going to say exactly this.
The Court says protesting at people’s houses is fair game. Have at them.
It has been some time since I’ve researched Con law (something I USED to do). But I’m pretty sure the caselaw regarding search and seizure heavily reflects one’s expectation of privacy in various locations/situations - at home, driving one’s car, walking down a street, at work or in school.
But you are absolutely correct - the word “privacy” does not appear in the Const. Not sure how realistic it is to suggest a right to be secure … against unreasonable searches isn’t damned close to some meaning of privacy. If it doesn’t suggest a right to privacy, what DOES it suggest?