Privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut

[opebo]

They imply a right to privacy how?

By reserving various rights for individuals, against State interference.

[A18]

And that means other rights not listed are also exceptions to powers?

[opebo]

And that means other rights not listed are also exceptions to powers?

Yes.  It is precisely analogous to the right-wing attitude that the Second Amendment prevents the State from outlawing not only muskets but also innovations such as assault rifles and so forth.

[A18]

No. The fact that there are specific rights to privacy in no way implies a generic right to privacy.

The right to bear arms is a principle that is actually in the Constitution.

[Emsworth]

The Supreme Court has made the most implausible connections in deciding Griswold, Roe, and related cases. First, the Court decides that "privacy" is within the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. "Privacy" supposedly includes "marital privacy," which in turn implies "reproductive rights," which in turn includes the right to buy contraceptives or to procure an abortion.

Needless to say, the series of inferences is extremely absurd. Rather than building such a ridiculous chain of implications, a more direct approach is necessary. Is the "right" to abort a fetus, or to purchase contraceptives, even remotely implied by any of the Bill of Rights? The answer is obviously no.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly, whether private or public. The guarantee of the right to petition is obviously unrelated to privacy.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, whether publicly or privately.

The Third Amendment in fact allows a violation of privacy rights, because troops may be quartered in homes during wartime.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, whether they are conducted privately or publicly. A warrantless seizure is unconstitutional whether performed on a public street or secretly in a person's home.

The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments have no connection at all with privacy, being for the most part procedural guarantees.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are federalism provisions, with no connection at all to privacy.

[opebo]

No. The fact that there are specific rights to privacy in no way implies a generic right to privacy.

The right to bear arms is a principle that is actually in the Constitution.

No, the fact that there are specific rights to privacy plus new situations unanticipated by the primitive Fathers is exactly analogous to the specific right to 'arms' and the new types of weapons.  There is a generic right to privacy, and there would be a generic right to weaponry if not for the fact that the 'militia' part of that amendment means that there is in fact no right to bear arms at all.

[opebo]

The Supreme Court has made the most implausible connections in deciding Griswold, Roe, and related cases. First, the Court decides that "privacy" is within the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. "Privacy" supposedly includes "marital privacy," which in turn implies "reproductive rights," which in turn includes the right to buy contraceptives or to procure an abortion.

Needless to say, the series of inferences is extremely absurd. Rather than building such a ridiculous chain of implications, a more direct approach is necessary. Is the "right" to abort a fetus, or to purchase contraceptives, even remotely implied by any of the Bill of Rights? The answer is obviously no.

Not at all - it is very clearly implied by the list of other rights to privacy and freedom from State control that is the Bill of Rights.  The obvious connection would be things like freedom from searches and seizures - if one has this right to freedom from State interference in ones house, certainly one must have it ones person!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The right to freedom of expression is clearly related to privacy, and all sorts of behaviours can be considered expression, including the use of contraceptives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This also establishes the right to privacy as you interpret it (ignoring as you do the requirement that the guns be within a milita).

[A18]

The fact that the Framers didn't anticipate a situation, does not mean we get to introduce a new principle into the Constitution without passing an amendment. A generic right to privacy clearly would have been rejected, since sodomy was punished by death.

Your Second Amendment claim has been destroyed in other threads.

[opebo]

The fact that the Framers didn't anticipate a situation, does not mean we get to introduce a new principle into the Constitution. A generic right to privacy clearly would have been rejected, since sodomy was punished by death.

Not at all.  Just because the constitution was applied wrongly from the start doesn't mean we have to continue doing so.  One may constantly re-interpret, and the result will no doubt be a better document than the one intended by the repulsive murderers of homosexuals who wrote it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all.  One cannot 'destroy' an interpretation.  For example, if there were nine liberal justices on the court, they might agree with my interpretation, and then that would be the official interpretation.  It is all about politics, Philip.

True, if the assinine Founding Fathers hadn't mention guns at all we'd be better off, but happily they also put the militia thing in there as well.  Why?  Who knows?  But it is useful to us.

[A18]

It was applied correctly. That was the original understanding, and the only legitimate one.

We are discussing constitutionality as an academic matter. Obviously the Court could adopt your interpretation, despite the fact that it has been absolutely discredited.

[opebo]

It was applied correctly. That was the original understanding, and the only legitimate one.

No, there is no 'correct' understanding, only an understanding that one prefers. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Discredited'?  How is that possible?  Wouldn't that assume some agreed upon standard by which interpretations are evaluated?  There is no such standard - there are a number of sides, each of which uses different methods of interpretation.

[A18]

Yes. The assumption that it should be interpreted in English.

[nclib]

Constitutionally sound, since the 9th Amendment has been interpreted to protect the right to privacy.

[A18]

Constitutionally sound, since the 9th Amendment has been interpreted to protect the right to privacy.

Uh, the fact that something has been interpreted one way, does not mean that interpretation is correct.

The Ninth Amendment is a federalism provision. Even if it did create positive rights, and even if those were incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, history makes it clear a right to privacy would not be one of them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

One of the best Supreme Court decisions ever.

[nclib]

The Ninth Amendment is a federalism provision. Even if it did create positive rights, and even if those were incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, history makes it clear a right to privacy would not be one of them.

What SC decisions make it clear that "a right to privacy would not be one of them"?

[A18]

What do you mean, "what Supreme Court decisions?" We're talking about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, not what the Supreme Court said it meant.

The Supreme Court took the position that it was a federalism provision, which I believe to be the original understanding.

I'm saying that even if the Ninth Amendment did create positive rights, it's clear from the kinds of laws that existed when it was ratified that a right to privacy would not be one of them.

[opebo]

I'm saying that even if the Ninth Amendment did create positive rights, it's clear from the kinds of laws that existed when it was ratified that a right to privacy would not be one of them.

That is absurd - the Amendment would have superceded those mere laws, and made them unconstitutional, thus creating the right to privacy.

[A18]

The fact that those laws went unchallenged makes it pretty clear that the founding generation did not see them as violating any part of the Constitution, even though some people did believe the bill of rights applied to the states.