AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

John of Chicago Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am having trouble deciding whether Robin's story
> is authentic or an exercise in creative writing.
> She has characterized herself with a collection of
> liberal stereotypes: living in Berkeley, a
> psychotherapist by occupation, raised in New York
> City, a father who was a Jewish immigrant, and
> other details about her life.

John, I heard someone of the same name and same story on a local radio program before the first of Robin's AT pieces appeared. She definitely didn't sound like someone reciting a script.

Robin essentially admits that her bio looks stereotypical. Somebody crafting a literary fiction would probably have tried to avoid an obvious stereotype.

But perhaps you don't realize how much of Berkeley IS one big stereotype--how much conformism there is among those who purport to be celebrating "diversity." Many longtime denizens of Berkeley come across as self-parody.

She definitely didn't sound like someone reciting a script.

Americans have a constitutional right to privacy. The right springs from several of the Bill of Rights amendments, and is incorporated in the due process protected by the fourteenth amendment.(12) Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510. Academic discussion of a right to privacy dates at least to the common law arguments of Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren in 1890. Brandeis and Warren, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193 (1890).(13) The volume of commentary has increased geometrically since then.(14) Yet, "(t)he concept of a constitutional right of privacy still remains largely undefined". Kurland, The Private I, The University of Chicago Magazine 7, 8 (Autumn 1976), quoted in Whalen v. Roe, 1977, 429 U.S. 589, 599 nn.24, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64. In Whalen the Court made an effort to unsnarl some of the tangled strands of privacy.

12. Some justices have seen privacy protected by the ninth amendment. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, 381 U.S. 479, 484, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (Justice Goldberg concurring, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan). This seems to be a distinction without a difference. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." (emphasis added). Roe v. Wade, 1973, 410 U.S. 113, 153, 93 S.Ct. 705, 727, 35 L.Ed.2d 147

13. Justice Brandeis has been quoted over a 38 year period by parties on both sides of this question. His 1890 article marshalled common law support for an expansive right to privacy. But see Pratt, The Warren and Brandeis Argument for a Right to Privacy, 1975 Public Law. 161. Twenty-four years later, in a series of articles published during congressional consideration of what became of the Clayton Act, he advocated public disclosure of corporate financial arrangements in a passage which may have given this Amendment its name

"Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman."

L. Brandeis, Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It 62 (1914). Fourteen years later, in Olmstead v. United States, he dissented from a decision approving wiretapping, characterizing privacy as "the right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men". Olmstead v. United States, 1928, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S.Ct. 564, 572, 72 L.Ed. 944.


14. A far from exhaustive list of the excellent articles and books in this area includes Gerety, Redefining Privacy, 12 Harv.Civ.R.-Civ.L.L.Rev. 233 (1977); Henkin, Privacy and Autonomy, 74 Colum.L.Rev. 1410 (1974); Bloustein, The First Amendment and Privacy: The Supreme Court Justice and the Philosopher, 28 Rutgers L.Rev. 41 (1974); A. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967); and, generally, XIII Nomos (1971)

So you agree that there is no 'executive privilege?' That was 'made up' in entirely the same fashion you claim the right to privacy is.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So you agree that there is no 'executive privilege?' That was 'made up' in entirely the same fashion you claim the right to privacy is.

Cycloptichorn

I am no lawyer, cyclops, but that has to do, I think, with separation of powers between the branches of government, including what those branches have the power to do, as granted by the constitution, so to say it is not in the constitution, I don't think that is a good analogy.

The right to privacy, if used in the same way, then how can anyone be arrested in their homes for drug use, or in the commission of crimes?

The pertinent point is not the right to privacy, but the legality of killing the unborn. The way I see it, it has nothing to do with the right to privacy. Sure, people have a right to privacy as long as they are obeying the law. But it is the interpretation of the law as it relates to abortion, not privacy, that determines the legality of abortion. If the right to privacy was pertinent, it could be used to negate almost any crime, that is my opinion, which makes more sense than a twisted Surpreme Court decision. I just think the legality or illegality of abortion must hinge upon something besides the right to privacy. That makes no sense, and I think a good many constitutional experts agree with me. It was a bad precedent, and poor constitutional argument.

You can't arrest someone in their home for drug use, unless you have a warrant to enter, or unless the police enter while in pursuit of someone suspected of fleeing the scene of a crime. The courts have been very liberal, too, in the interpretation of those circumstances under which the police may enter a private residence. There is no privileged sanctuary--if you are observed by the police in the commission of a crime, or in an activity which a reasonable person would interpret as the commission of a crime, they have the right to pursue to apprehend, including the right to enter your domicile without a warrant.

Your ignorance is astounding for someone who is so opinionated.

To summarize my opinion, if cops have good evidence of drug use, they can make search and seizure.

Quote:

To summarize my opinion, if cops have good evidence of drug use, they can make search and seizure.

That may be your opinion, but it isn't the opinion of any court.

I believe the constitution was written for common people to understand.

You are hopelessly missing the point, while you keep reinforcing my argument. As I said, and you keep pointing out, right to privacy or protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not determine legality of a behavior.