Alito - take him or leave him

It was a crime in some states. The Supreme Court said those laws criminalizing it were unconstitutional. But based on what? The way they did it was using the famous "right to privacy." But there are drug laws, prostitution laws, and other laws that have not been ruled unconstitutional simply on the basis of the right to privacy. I think many constitutional scholars realize the concept is flawed and is definitely a slippery slope, especially since the concept is not actually enumerated in the constitution, it is only surmised as being somehow connected with other rights that are.

0 Replies

If you read what Debra posted it appears there's a lot more to the decision than the right to privacy.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Not being a lawyer, it seems clear to me that the conjured up "right to privacy" does not allow one to commit crimes in private. A person has a right to be secure in your house and your personal belongings and so forth, obviously, but if you are committing crimes in private, per the laws enacted by the people that are perfectly legal and constitutional, it seems like the right to privacy is a hollow argument.

Of course you can't commit a crime in private. At the same time that state can't make a private activity between consenting adults a crime without there being an overriding "compelling state interest" either.

IOW, you have the right to do as you please in privacy as long as that activity can in no way, shape or form impacts anyone else. The minute you start impacting someone else that state begins to gain an interest. When your private activity becomes a harm to someone else you begin to enter the "compelling" stage.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

But there are drug laws, prostitution laws, and other laws that have not been ruled unconstitutional simply on the basis of the right to privacy.

Of course these haven't been ruled unconstitutional on teh basis of a right to privacy. They aren't private activities. The buying and selling of drugs and people's bodies are commerce - something the Constitution very clearly gives the government the authority to regulate.

When the government is granted the authority to regulate something in the Constitution itself the USSC can't really rule that regulation as unconstitutional now can they??? Both activities are also considered to generate a compelling state interest that would override any right of privacy in current society.

0 Replies

Theres the rub, that someone else. Obviously there is a father involved. He can be made to pay child support, so it seems he should have some rights here; there is definitely some affect here. Not to mention the child, that in the case of near term, one hour after being born, to kill the child is murder. One hour before being born its just a right to privacy? Something doesn't add up here. And I think most people recognize the inconsistency and the lack of common sense applied here.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Theres the rub, that someone else. Obviously there is a father involved. He can be made to pay child support, so it seems he should have some rights here; there is definitely some affect here.

There is no "father" until the child is born. The father has parental rights (at least conceptually) equeal to the mother's the moment the child is born. The woman can also be made to pay child support. The decision of who pays it is made by a court AFTER the child is born.

Quote:

Not to mention the child, that in the case of near term, one hour after being born, to kill the child is murder. One hour before being born its just a right to privacy? Something doesn't add up here. And I think most people recognize the inconsistency and the lack of common sense applied here.

This is a huge mis-characterization of Roe v. Wade. In Roe the Court said very clearly that the state gains an interest as the term of pregnancy progresses and that the states can regulate abortions once the fetus reaches the point of viability (which is determined by a competent medical authority). That has since been clarified in several cases to add the provision that the state can not force the woman to put herself at risk for the sake of the fetus.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Not being a lawyer, it seems clear to me that the conjured up "right to privacy" does not allow one to commit crimes in private. A person has a right to be secure in your house and your personal belongings and so forth, obviously, but if you are committing crimes in private, per the laws enacted by the people that are perfectly legal and constitutional, it seems like the right to privacy is a hollow argument.

The word "conjure" means to summon (a devil or spirit) by magical or supernatural power; to influence or effect by or as if by magic.

When you commence an argument by describing the "right to privacy" as a "conjured" right, you are stating an unsubstantiated conclusion. You have concluded, without setting forth any facts to substantiate your conclusion, that the right to privacy was somehow "created" out of thin air.

Your statement about the "conjured" nature of the right and your statements that follow this unsubstantiated conclusion demonstrate that you don't fully understand the nature and scope of the right to privacy. I hope the following remarks will be helpful to put the right into proper perspective:

The right to privacy does not entitle anyone to get away with criminal activity simply because the crime was conducted in private. The right to privacy is a liberty interest: It encompasses the broad principle that each individual has the right to live his or her life free from unreasonable government intrusions--the right to be left alone and to live one's life according to one's own conscience and choices when the government doesn't have any compelling interest that is served by sticking it's governmental nose into the people's private lives.

The best way to explain is by analogy. Let's look at the freedom of religion. That freedom is a category of our liberty and privacy rights. Each individual has the right to believe or not believe in God or religion according to one's own conscience and choices. Each individual has the right to worship in the manner he chooses free from unreasonable government intrusions.

Now let's go back to what you said: ". . . if you are committing crimes in private, per the laws enacted by the people that are perfectly legal and constitutional, it seems like the right to privacy is a hollow argument."

Let's apply that reasoning to the right of religious freedom: If you are committing acts that have been defined as crimes by a constitutional criminal statute, and you are doing so because of your religious beliefs, the right to religious freedom is not a defense. Obviously, we can all agree that the law would not allow you to engage in the sacrificial killings of human beings simply because your religion embraces the ritual. When a criminal statute is constitutional on its face and as applied, no individual's rights are infringed by the enforcement of that statute.

However, if the government passed a law that required all individuals to practice christianity and criminalized the non-practice of christianity, then it seems invoking the right to religious freedom is NOT a "hollow argument."

Similarly, if the government passed a law that required all persons to use the missionary position when engaging in sexual intercourse and criminalized all other sexual positions, then it seems invoking the right to privacy is NOT a "hollow argument."

If people truly understand the nature and scope of the right to privacy, then it should be easier to discern the difference between valid and invalid arguments based on the right to privacy.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

okie wrote:

There is no "father" until the child is born. The father has parental rights (at least conceptually) equeal to the mother's the moment the child is born. The woman can also be made to pay child support. The decision of who pays it is made by a court AFTER the child is born.

Believe what you want. My daughter recently had a daughter, my granddaughter. She was as perfect, with all fingers and toes, with all amazing detail. If anyone would have harmed her intentionally 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months before being born, I think its murder. Just my personal opinion, but no court in the world is going to convince me otherwise. I don't personally care to argue any more about something so obvious. Whether she had legal standing with your judge of choice, I couldn't care less. I cannot fathom how anyone could choose to end the life of the fruit of one's own being, your own offspring for crying out loud. Something is very wrong with this whole debate here. And for a political party to seemingly stake their whole foundation on the right to kill their own offspring is to me, breathtakingly stupid, and I would add, immoral.

This is one of the reasons I voted for Bush, to slow down the absolute insanity of courts. I have no idea whether he could ever be instrumental in overturning Roe v Wade, but at least maybe he will help stem the tide of more wrong rulings by the Supreme Court. Another example obviously violating private property rights has been the taking of property so that other big business interests can use it to generate more taxes for an area. Another example is the granting of benefits to illegal aliens, as in California, in direct contradiction of the constitution and the will of the people.

0 Replies

Isn't your beliefand your inforcement of your belief making it so other people are denied choices? Just because one person strongly believes abortion is murder does no mean all people believe the same.
To use an overly simplistic example. Madeline O'Hare was responsible for having prayer removed from school. Because of that, those people who wish to pray in school can no longer do it.
If abortion is made illeagal, as you wish, that you are forcing your will and you beliefs on me. If abortion still remains legal, you and I both have choices on what we want.
If my daughter said that she wanted an abortion, I would fight her tooth and nail. However, if friends of mine said they wanted and abortion, I would say that is their choice.
People cannot make up their mind on where there should be a seperation of church and state. Our government was founded on the premis of freedom of religion. This also includes freedom of beliefs.
I appose some form of censorship. This brings me to internal conflicts. There is music??? I would much rather choose not to listen too, however, If I say that all that music??? should be banned, then I am trying to force my beliefs on other people. Instead, I simply turn the music??? off.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Believe what you want. My daughter recently had a daughter, my granddaughter. She was as perfect, with all fingers and toes, with all amazing detail. If anyone would have harmed her intentionally 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months before being born, I think its murder. Just my personal opinion, but no court in the world is going to convince me otherwise. I don't personally care to argue any more about something so obvious. Whether she had legal standing with your judge of choice, I couldn't care less. I cannot fathom how anyone could choose to end the life of the fruit of one's own being, your own offspring for crying out loud. Something is very wrong with this whole debate here. And for a political party to seemingly stake their whole foundation on the right to kill their own offspring is to me, breathtakingly stupid, and I would add, immoral.

I suspect that if your daughter had run into major medical issues 7 months into the pregnancy and found herself faced with the choice of being dead in 8 hours or aborting the pregnancy and she chose to abort the pregnancy you'd be on here thanking your lucky stars that your daughter was still alive and doing well. While you can't see how someone would end the life of their own offspring can you see yourself forcing your daughter to end her own life? How is that a better end result?

0 Replies

That is a medical choice. Obviously you try to save both, and the mother probably first, depending on her and the fathers decision, but if you can't, you can't. That is not a valid analogy. If a man jumps in a river to save one of two, and had to make a choice which one, is that murder of the other? Obviously not. Morality is written in the law obviously. It is against the law to kill another person, even if my religion says it believes in murder.

Overturning Roe v Wade does not outlaw abortion. The matter would go back to the states for the people to determine.

I may not be like other people against abortion, and you will likely accuse me of being inconsistent, so be it, but I think we should be a little more practical about this issue, the way it was before Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade were overturned, and the states were to decide the issue, my input would be, lets make it illegal to abort after the child becomes viable, perhaps 4 months or 5 months. If in the rare case, there is a medical issue after that, the effort can be made to save both mother and child, but in rare cases, it may not be possible. I just think that killing a nearly full term child is reprehensible and is extremely brutal. Women that do it, possibly because of bad advice, almost always live with tremendous guilt the rest of their lives. It is a tragedy. Now if Roe v Wade was sound law, okay, but lets all face it, it just is not.

One of the basic purposes and ideals of our country and our constitution is the protection of life. If a fetus is able to survive outside the womb without the mother, then I think we are on thin ice to allow the mother to kill it. I know others disagree. But thats my opinion.

0 Replies

Okie: You apparently don't know that the Roe v. Wade ruling upholds the very thing you just said.

When the fetus is viable, the state may prohibit abortion except when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the woman. The matter of post-viability abortions is in the hands of your state legislature.

0 Replies

I will admit I am not familiar with all state laws, and even what the decision says, but the main point is that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds by ruling on the case at all. And my reading of this confirms my suspicion that very few people understand the case. Plus it only further confirms the fact that the Supreme Court, even if it was appropriate to rule in the case, has only demonstrated its own inconsistency of reasoning by making distinctions in the trimesters. It would seem to further confirm that the appropriate place to establish such laws are with the people's own state legislatures.

0 Replies

I could hardly believe my ears!!!! Robert Byrd to vote for Alito! Is he running for re-election? I smell a rat here.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I will admit I am not familiar with all state laws, and even what the decision says, but the main point is that the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds by ruling on the case at all. And my reading of this confirms my suspicion that very few people understand the case. Plus it only further confirms the fact that the Supreme Court, even if it was appropriate to rule in the case, has only demonstrated its own inconsistency of reasoning by making distinctions in the trimesters. It would seem to further confirm that the appropriate place to establish such laws are with the people's own state legislatures.

Your own failure to understand or familiarize yourself with Roe v. Wade somehow confirms your suspicion that very few people understand Roe v. Wade?

Even though you don't even know what the decision says, you claim your lack of knowledge somehow confirms that the Supreme Court was wrong in its reasoning?

Even though you don't know what the heck you're talking about, you claim your lack of knowledge somehow confirms your argument that your state legislature rather than the United States Supreme Court should determine the extent that the state may deprive the people of their constitutionally-protected liberty interests?

You acknowledge that you don't know a damn thing about the subject matter and then you have the audacity to claim your own lack of knowledge somehow supports your arguments.

News FLASH: Your acknowledged ignorance confirms nothing other than your own ignorance.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Even though you don't know what the heck you're talking about, you claim your lack of knowledge somehow confirms your argument that your state legislature rather than the United States Supreme Court should determine the extent that the state may deprive the people of their constitutionally-protected liberty interests?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but many constitutional scholars do not believe that abortion is a "constitutionally-protected liberty interest" as you phrase it. Are liberals the only people with a monopoly on the correct interpretation of the constitution? The answer is no. Sorry, but you need to wake up to the fact that not everyone agrees with you and your interpretation, and those that disagree with you are also interpreting the constitution as well. Some scholars that are even pro-abortion rights believe that Roe v Wade was not constitutionally sound.

0 Replies

Okie:

Why don't you educate all of us on the opinions of these constitutional scholars. Name the scholar and set forth his/her scholarly rationale for determining that women do not have a liberty interest in determining for themselves whether to bear children.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

That is a medical choice. Obviously you try to save both, and the mother probably first, depending on her and the fathers decision, .

What makes you think the man has any say in the matter that is unless the woman asks for his input?

0 Replies

not to mention that the constitution wasn't developed, written and published solely for scholars. not as far as i know, anyway.

seems to me, if the constitution says "you can do this", you can do it. if it doesn't say "you cannot do this", you can do it.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
That is a medical choice. Obviously you try to save both, and the mother probably first, depending on her and the fathers decision, .

What makes you think the man has any say in the matter that is unless the woman asks for his input?

Then why do men have to pay child support if they have no responsibility or rights with their children? Very minor point I'm sure, but just in case you haven't considered that, you might want to?

0 Replies

Alito - take him or leave him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know