Presedential Election

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326299688' post='2366944']
Take a read of this, authored by a Constitutional lawyer.

[url="http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp"]http://old.nationalr...00503140754.asp[/url]
[/quote]

I love Mark Levin, thanks for posting that article. Crazy. Does everything go back to PP and wanting to kill babies?

It's also amazing to learn the genesis of all the neat catchphrases pro-choice/liberal people use to defend their stance on various laws. I've heard the "gov't in the bedroom" line a million times, like it's a good argument or something.

[Amppax]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326299688' post='2366944']
Take a read of this, authored by a Constitutional lawyer.

[url="http://old.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp"]http://old.nationalr...00503140754.asp[/url]
[/quote]

A quick google search reveals that the argument for a "right to privacy" goes back further than Levin's claims. This site names two 1920's cases that the author states support a right to privacy. Now that's not all the way back to the late 1800's but its much further then what Levin claims.

[url="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html"]http://law2.umkc.edu...tofprivacy.html[/url]

Not trying to argue, but it seems that not everyone agrees with Levin's claim that this argument arose from the abortion debate.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Amppax

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Sirklawd' timestamp='1326302636' post='2366972']

It's also amazing to learn the genesis of all the neat catchphrases pro-choice/liberal people use to defend their stance on various laws. I've heard the "gov't in the bedroom" line a million times, like it's a good argument or something.
[/quote]

it is at least as good a line as the "Gov't in my pocket/wallet" that gets thrown out all the time.

[4588686]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326304303' post='2366982']
A quick google search reveals that the argument for a "right to privacy" goes back further than Levin's claims. This site names two 1920's cases that the author states support a right to privacy. Now that's not all the way back to the late 1800's but its much further then what Levin claims.

[url="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html"]http://law2.umkc.edu...tofprivacy.html[/url]

Not trying to argue, but it seems that not everyone agrees with Levin's claim that this argument arose from the abortion debate.
[/quote]

The idea goes back to, at the latest, 1890 when Brandeis and a co-author (whose name I forget, I believe it begins with a 'W') wrote an impassioned defense of the right to Privacy as an emanation of the penumbra cast by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments in the Harvard Law Review. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar (like that repulsive propagandist, Mark Levine) or simply ignorant (like so many internet pugilists). It's incorporation into the formal Constitutional Law Cannon came much later, beginning with the contraceptive laws the court struck down (although Brandeis wrote an impassioned dissent in the cases you cited far earlier). This still makes the Right to Privacy's incorporation in Constitutional Law far more institutional and established than the right of the individual to bear arms (a decision I agree with, by the way, but one not even in Constitutional Law before the 30's, where it was denied, and only reversed in the late 20th and early 21st century).

Edited January 11, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

[url="http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html"]http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/privacy/Privacy_brand_warr2.html[/url]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326291238' post='2366893']
False. Maybe you think the idea of a right to privacy is bogus (although I doubt you've read the entirety of the relevant case law) but even if the idea of a right to privacy were baseless, which it isn't, it is still factually false to say the the idea originated with 20th 'activist' judges. The idea clearly goes back to the late 19th century.
[/quote]
The idea of an [i]overarching all-encompassing[/i] "right to privacy" which applies to absolutely everything regarding sex and child-bearing (including the "right" to kill a child in the womb), and overrides the 10th amendment is in fact a 20th century idea, which can be traced back specifically to [i]Poe v. Ullman[/i] in 1961. Levin is specifically tracing here (which can be read in the link posted by StMichael) the process leading up to Roe v. Wade by which Justice William Douglas applied the "right to privacy" to apply to selling contraceptives to married couples in[i] Griswold vs. Connecticut[/i], and then Justice William Brennan applied the "right to privacy" to individuals regarding "the decision to beget or bear a child" - which he and other pro-abortion justices used to apply the "right to privacy" to protect abortion.

Obviously, there is a legitimate right to privacy implied in the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures - but laws against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government hardly constitute a constitutional right to kill your unborn child by any sane reckoning. It's an obviously bogus line of reasoning used by liberal justices to make the constitution say what they want it to say, rather than what it does in fact say.


[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326307722' post='2367039']
The idea goes back to, at the latest, 1890 when Brandeis and a co-author (whose name I forget, I believe it begins with a 'W') wrote an impassioned defense of the right to Privacy as an emanation of the penumbra cast by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments in the Harvard Law Review. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar (like that repulsive propagandist, Mark Levine) or simply ignorant (like so many internet pugilists). It's incorporation into the formal Constitutional Law Cannon came much later, beginning with the contraceptive laws the court struck down (although Brandeis wrote an impassioned dissent in the cases you cited far earlier).
[/quote]
Ah yes, the infamous "emanation of a penumbra"! (that particular phrase going back to William Douglas in [i]Griswold vs. Connecticut[/i]).

A "penumbra" literally means a partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot, and an "emanation" means an emission of gas.

There is no such all-prevailing right to contraceptives or abortion listed in the Constitution, so the best Douglas can do is argue that it's based on an [i]emission from a shadow[/i] - which comes awful close to thin air. I smell the distinct emanation of bullcrap there.

[quote]This still makes the Right to Privacy's incorporation in Constitutional Law far more institutional and established than the right of the individual to bear arms (a decision I agree with, by the way, but one not even in Constitutional Law before the 30's, where it was denied, and only reversed in the late 20th and early 21st century).[/quote]
Nonsense, as the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly spelled out in the second amendment. (And any quick study of history and the writings of the constitution's framers on the topic, as well as basic grammar, makes clear it did apply to individuals, not some corporate right of the states. Individuals owned and bore arms; states did not. And in the Bill of Rights, "rights" always referred to individual citizens, not governments, which had "powers.")

Edited January 12, 2012 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1326304303' post='2366982']
A quick google search reveals that the argument for a "right to privacy" goes back further than Levin's claims. This site names two 1920's cases that the author states support a right to privacy. Now that's not all the way back to the late 1800's but its much further then what Levin claims.

[url="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html"]http://law2.umkc.edu...tofprivacy.html[/url]

Not trying to argue, but it seems that not everyone agrees with Levin's claim that this argument arose from the abortion debate.
[/quote]
He was specifically tracing the "right to privacy" as applied to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Never before had the "right to privacy" been argued to include anything and everything related to begetting and bearing a child.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326330021' post='2367247']
He was specifically tracing the "right to privacy" as applied to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Never before had the "right to privacy" been argued to include anything and everything related to begetting and bearing a child.
[/quote]

but the idea of there being a right to privacy predates what you are talking about. Granted, they took it further (to ridiculous levels imo), but the didn't just "make it up" as you are claiming.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1325962974' post='2364523']
*sigh* only eleven more months to go. You people need far shorter campaign times
[/quote]

yes

[Aloysius]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326147665' post='2365897']
...
[/quote]
A right to privacy is implied in the 4th amendment and it has generally been laid to rest that American citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights from both Federal and State governments, which is why even State governments cannot enforce a state religion, ban the people from bearing arms, and why state investigations are also bound by constitutional limitations in search and seizure. Paul did not base his argument on Griswald or the 14th ammendment at all, and the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments is long settled precedent that shouldn't be argued against.

Paul actually mentioned the abuse of the interstate commerce clause, noting that it is meant to facilitate trade rather than restrict it. It might be abused often, but Paul's argument is not an abuse of it IMO... though I think the sale of contraceptives probably could be banned by states the same way individual states should be able to decide whether to illegalize the sale of drugs or not. The Federal government is suppose to make interstate commerce possible, not regulate and restrict it. that was the basis of his argument, coming from a social perspective where contraceptives are so largely supported by popular opinion I can see why it seems to make sense.

I like how Paul didn't rest himself on Griswald's basis for their decision, and didn't incorrectly use the 14th amendment, and then I largely recognize that he was really trying to make a point about a political topic that's actually a topic in American politics (ie the Patriot act) rather than a complete and absolute non-issue in American politics (no state in the union even wants to illegalize contraception).

when it comes to Santorum, he has been so far entrenched in the establishment liberal republican party and in the pockets of lobbyists, I can't trust him. and his escalating talk on war with Iran is absolutely inconsonate with Christianity. our lack of diplomatic ties with Iran (and Iran has asked for diplomatic talks a few times, even if it would be a waste of time Christianity requires us to try) over the past 40 years make any war with Iran 100% disqualified from just war criteria, because unless we are engaged in at least some kind of diplomacy (which we have not been for decades) and then that diplomacy fails we are unable to justifiably attack.

[Socrates]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1326259027' post='2366773']
If I have a right to privacy why can't I speak on my cellphone while driving? Or drink coffee while driving? How can a police officer look into my vehicle without due process?
[/quote]
Or buy heroin to shoot up in the privacy of one's own home? Or for that matter, quietly kill one's five-year-old kid in the privacy of one's home?
Obviously, SCOTUS justices are quite arbitrary and inconsistent in deciding where the Penumbra of "Right to Privacy" does and does not apply.


But who are we mere peasants to question the infinite wisdom of the Black-robed Ones, who have been granted the mystical wizard-like ability to divine the mysterious arcane dictates of such elusive ethereal and subtle entities as the Emanations of Penumbra? (Coming soon! [i] Harry Potter and the Emanation of the Penumbra[/i])

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1326290809' post='2366891']
Gingrich and Santorum are both charlatans who prey on individuals like yourself who are so pursadable that you think a token attendance of mass is somehow proof of sincerity. Santorum helped his his friend John Ensign get ahead of the media storm when someone tried to reach out to him (Santorum) for help. Thinking that Santorum was sincere about his piety the husband of the woman Ensign was sleeping with reached out to Santorum. Santorum responded by tipping off Ensign so he could get ahead of the negative media coverage. Gingirch is a serial adultery who is currently married to some home-wrecker who sang in the Cathedral choir while she was flooping a married man. That marriage is a union of false piety and hypocrisy.
[/quote]
Such judgmentalism! What are you now, some kind of religious right wingnut trying to impose your puritanical sexual mores on these people?


If only they were Bill Clinton for whom such behavior was totally amesome.

[quote]Stop being so gullible.[/quote]
Hope! Change!

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1326415465' post='2367980']
Such judgmentalism! What are you now, some kind of religious right wingnut trying to impose your puritanical sexual mores on these people?[/QUOTE]

You're an intelligent man. You know perfectly well that I was criticizing the hypocrisy of these two charlatans and not advocating conservative sexual ethics.

[QUOTE]If only they were Bill Clinton for whom such behavior was totally amesome.


Hope! Change!
[/quote]

I think Bill Clinton should have been impeached.

[ThePenciledOne]

Paul.

[InPersonaChriste]

I'm so glad I am Canadian.