Posted on 01/15/2006 8:59:46 AM PST by Dog Gone
Well then it was one of the better kept secrets, in that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Senate itself thought the 14th applied the BOR to the states.
A mere nine months after the 14th was ratified, the USSC ruled in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states. Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.
Eight years after the 14th was ratified, Congress was considering the "Blaine Amendment", a proposed constitutional amendment to impose the First Amendment's religious freedom mandates on the states as well as the federal government. Why would they do that if the 14th amendment already applied the First Amendment to the states?
"This seems fairly clear to me. If this isn't a guarantee of privacy, what is?"
Ya beat me too it! "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"!!!! That says it all right there.
The 14th amendment was part of a trilogy (13th, 14th, & 15th) to deal with the newly freed slaves. The slaves were not citizens of any state and consequently had no state-protected rights or privileges. The 14th amendment made them "citizens of the United States", and extended some fundamental privileges and immunities to them.
That's like saying the federal government should only be allowed to regulate interstate air travel. You're saying that an individual should be able to fly his private plane anytime and anywhere in the state he wants, including federally regulated air corridors and commercial landing patterns.
Since this private flying would have a substantial effect on interstate air travel, Congress has the power to also control this private activity. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Well, Congress has determined, in a Congressional finding, that your personal use of marijuana also substantially affects their interstate regulatory efforts. Ergo, ....
Short history of abortion?
Well, it started with the first human culture to have any organized use of herbs or tools.
EVERY culture has had access to abortion, ranging from ingesting varied herbs, to beating the belly of the pregnant woman, and to internally invasive means.
You may have to look hard to find any factual information on early abortion methods, I seem to recall reading that sharing such information is now illegal.
I can say that I found out from an out of print book that a certain plant which is an abundant native species in Nevada was used as an aborticant by the native tribes for centuries.
No matter what laws may be passed, the ancient wish to control the timing, sex, or sire, of a pregnancy will continue, and means to accomplish it WILL be found.
Not what the anti- abortion absolutist want to hear, just a fact.
In many parts of this world merely being suspected of having sex without marriage can get you killed, yet unmarried people in those regions still have sex.
A majority may be able to legislate their version of morality, but cannot always effectively enforce it!
If they could, Pol-Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the late Ayatollah of Iran, etc. would be much more respected than they currently are.
Eventually technology will provide for abortion in private, to such a degree that no one other than the woman will ever know.
True.
"States on the other hand, infringe on rights."
Not quite. States (actually the citizens of the states) decide which of these natural rights they will protect and to what extent. Your right to speech is protected, but not a right to slander. In Chicago, you have a right to defend yourself, but not with a gun.
It is a specific, enumerated and limited right as opposed to "you can do sodomy, cocaine and counterfiting' in the 'privacy' of your bedroom.
Keywords here are: unreasonable searches and seizures
Before the FBI comes busting down the door, they'd better make absolutely sure they've got the right person and not an innocent party with the same name. "Sorry" doesn't count!
It's a limitation on searches, not a general bestowal of a right to privacy.
Do YOU understand that the U.S. Constitution does not "create" ANY rights?
It only confirms, and thus attempts to protect, our pre-existing natural rights!
The Ninth amendment was adopted for good reason, this jerks reasoning only proves the ninth's necessity.
Of course that's false. Most of the BOR was not incorporated until the 20th century. The first was the 5th Amendment in 1897. There is a SCOTUS case in the mid 1920s that even clearly stated the 1st Amendment was not incorporated to the states. This was not done until the late 1920s/early 1930s
You are right that rights are granted by God and government exists to protect those rights. However the argument advanced in Roe Vs. Wade did not deal with that question. It dealt with the question of is there a constitutional right of privacy that makes moot any State law on the issue of abortion.
Also the right against unreasonable searches and seizures has nothing to do with the right of privacy. It has to do with the right of citizens to due process. It also acknowleges that government in excercising its power is subject to lawful restraints. If it did have to do with a right to privacy it could be argued that any search or seizure violates the right to privacy. Since you can not gather evidence against a person without violating their privacy.
The government can not search your premises or persons without following legal procedures. But provided those procedures are followed a right to privacy will not prevent them from learning about every aspect of your life and using it as they see fit.
Abortion is mentioned in the Hippocractic Oath. It is also mentioned in an early Christian document called the Didache. So it was well known in antiquity.
The post I would like to have written!
BRAVO!
"The advocates of a constitutional right of privacy speak as though that right were expressly stated and enumerated in the Constitution."
These people who assert that we only have the rights that are enumerated in the Constitution have it all wrong. The Constitution was written to restrain government, not to limit the rights of the people.
I do have a right to privacy, arguably through the 4th Amendment,and also because God gives me one. Privacy, the right to be left alone as long as you are not hurting anyone else, is a natural right. I do not need government permission to be left alone.
Besides, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights states very clearly that the enumeration of certain rights is not intended to disparage other, unenumerated rights that we also have. An unenumerated right is just as much of a right as an enumerated one.
Thank you, you said it better and more clearly than I did.
You have a right to privacy, but that is not an absolute right.
If you're asserting that the Ninth Amendment is the source of your federally-recognized constitutional right to privacy, then you had better be prepared for the Court to use it as the basis to issue all kinds of amendments to the Constitution by judicial fiat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.