Posted on 03/24/2010 1:39:13 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
Here are some selected quotes from Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
If you don't know, the Griswold decision was the forerunner of Roe v. Wade. Griswold was based upon the Supreme Court's determination that under the Bill of Rights and the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment that there are certain Liberties, not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution that the State (including the Federal Government) cannot infringe. The following quotes are taken from that case and I believe make the argument that under the 9th Amendment the Federal Government cannot force an individual to purchase Health Insurance and further that a Government sponsored Health Care Plan would violate the right to privacy as enunciated in Griswold.
It would be a delicious irony if the Supreme Court used the Griswold case to overturn the Health Care bill. Here are some selected quotes:
Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure. And so we reaffirm the principle of the Pierce and the Meyer cases. In NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 357 U. S. 462 we protected the "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations," noting that freedom of association was a peripheral First Amendment right. Disclosure of membership lists of a constitutionally valid association, we held, was invalid "as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association." Ibid. In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.
.........
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy.
............
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." 381 U. S. 656
...............
a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288, 377 U. S. 307.
............
the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights.
.............
The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
.............
"In regard to . . . [a] suggestion, that the affirmance of certain rights might disparage others, or might lead to argumentative implications in favor of other powers, it might be sufficient to say that such a course of reasoning could never be sustained upon any solid basis. . . . But a conclusive answer is that such an attempt may be interdicted (as it has been) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
.................
II Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 626-627 (5th ed. 1891). He further stated, referring to the Ninth Amendment: "This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others, and, e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others."
.................
Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments, and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. As any student of this Court's opinions knows, this Court has held, often unanimously, that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain fundamental personal liberties from abridgment by the Federal Government or the States. See, e.g., Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497
...............
The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights.
...............
Ninth Amendment -- and indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75, 330 U. S. 94-95.
In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people" to determine whether a principle is "so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 291 U. S. 105. The inquiry is whether a right involved "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those 'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.' . . ."
................
I agree fully with the Court that, applying these tests, the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating "from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live." Id. at 367 U. S. 521
.................
There are more, but here is the clincher:
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. "
Just keep enough money in the bank to cover a half day in the hospital and keep an insurance application and a check for the first premium in your glove compartment. If anything happens and you or if you get violently ill and haven't yet lost consciousness, just sign and date the app and have Federal Express pick it up and deliver it with your check the next day.
I was also thinking some enterprising person might come up with a sort of low-priced “contingent” insurance that only pays out on the first claim (or claims within a week of the first claim, or something like that) to tide you over until you can buy normal health insurance. If you could draft it in such a way as to avoid the definition of health insurance under the act, you might be able to tap a pretty big niche market.
The truth is, even if the individual mandate isn’t knocked out by the courts, millions of young, healthy people will be dropping their insurance. Even once the penalty reaches its cap of $750 plus cost of living adjustments, that will be less than half of what I’m paying for health insurance now.
It’s unconstitutional via the 13th amendment.
Neither slavery NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
“servitude” is a status. It means basically “under the will of a master”. It is a state where your freedom of choice is restricted.
Being forced to buy health insurance, instead of being free to buy it if you want or not buy it if you don’t want, no matter what the Supremes have ever said about the matter, THAT IS SERVITUDE!!!!
Federal funds have been paying for abortion all along.
Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of dollars for contraception and this has simply allowed them to lower the price of abortions. The government has allowed Big Murder to operate under the absurd assumption that contraception and abortion are two separate and distinct businesses and this is a total falsehood. It would be like give Ford a billion dollars and telling them they could only use it for cars, not trucks or SUVs.
Hypocrisy; regulating every detail of our lives public and private and financial, while prohibiting regulation of birth control by judicial fiat. But, to guys like Alito, an ill-founded line of “penumbra” cases supporting a liberal project (birth control) is not a solid example to follow.
What would be more consistent with this group (Alito, Roberts, Thomas) is finding a set of core provisions in the Health Care Act that exceed general Congressional Authority. That would require tremendous courage. They could not issue such a decision, without calling into question virtually all “commerce clause” legislation. It could put Congress out of the Education and Welfare businesses(including Social Security/medicare). I don’t think you have 5 justices with that kind of will, but what do I know?
I think you might be on to something.
Please add me to your legal ping list!
Ok violin and acoustic guitar I can use. I am piano only and vocals. Can you pick in a bluegrass way?
Here’s the thing, I write songs and sell them. I am in the vein and genre of Robert Lee Castleman but he is also a performer. He’s successful that way because his compositions are hits with Alison Krauss. I have found that good composition can lead to better opportunities than performing well. Also I can do it in spare time :)
I know that making a living by performing is about as easy as winning the lottery, you have to be visible, be at the right place at the right time etc. It’s 1 in 10,000 at least.
What I need is someone to help arrange the guitar and violin sections and score the tabs for compositions. I can pay. Freepmail some links to your music or what you can do!
THAT was one of the first things I thought of.
Depending on your personal, moral, and/or religious perspective, you may already be paying for abortion with your taxes:
All military health facilities offering emergency contraceptives (By William H. McMichael - Staff writer)
Every military treatment facility and health clinic must now stock pills that can prevent pregnancy if taken within three days of having sex.
The change comes as a result of a recommendation by a committee of Defense Department physicians and pharmacists. Commonly known as “morning-after pills,” the drug had been stocked at some, but not all, military treatment facilities, with the decision on whether to do so left up to local officials.
The Military Health System approved the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee’s November decision on Feb. 3, meaning that the pills must now be stocked in all military treatment facilities, said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. Stocking will begin immediately, Smith said.
That includes bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon says.
The pills, which contain the hormone levonorgestrel, are known as the generics Plan B and the newer Plan B One Step, and by the trade name Next Choice.
Plan B is available over the counter for those age 17 and older; those who are younger must have a prescription. Military women serving at overseas locations must get it from a Defense Department dispensary.
The decision reverses a 2002 Bush administration decision to reject a committee recommendation to make the drug available to military women.
That decision had been partially reversed in 2006 after the Food and Drug Administration approved Plan B for sale without a prescription. The drug was then added to the Uniform Formulary, a list of drugs covered by the Tricare medical plans but that are optional items to have in stock in military facilities.
The Pentagon committee voted 13-2 last fall to add it to the Basic Core Formulary, which is a list of drugs that must be carried at all full-service treatment facilities.
Although the drug already was widely available, the decision to make it universally so disappointed anti-abortion advocates, one of whom called the pill “a dangerous and controversial drug” and said that, in addition to usage amounting to legal abortion, it will “eviscerate” the protections afforded military health care providers who are allowed to decline to participate “directly or indirectly in medical procedures that they find morally or religiously objectionable.”
“It is important to remember that military members, including health care providers, will not be able to walk away from their duties because they object to ‘emergency contraception,’ ” said Denise Burke of Americans United for Life. “Forced to violate their consciences, many military providers will leave the military when their service contracts expire, endangering quality of care and military readiness.”
Abortion rights advocates supported the decision. “We applaud the Pentagon for ensuring that every woman honorably serving our country and the spouses of military personnel stationed around the world will have access to the same basic reproductive health care available to women in the United States,” said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. “This latest decision is … another step toward ensuring every woman has the ability to prevent unintended pregnancy and plan healthy families.”
http://www.armytimes.com/benefits/health/military_emergency_contraception_bases_021610w/
This is an outstanding piece of research. This is also very important in the comments filed in the opinion essentially say we have the right of refusal.
But nothing must be left to chance in this political climate of dirty deeds.
Penumbra alert.
Agreed! Many mis-educated people confuse “rights” and “wants” these days.
He seems to ‘miss’ a lot of stuff, and only sees what he wants to see.
Seeing that he called Bush/Gore as to the case/chapter/paragraph and which justices would vote which way.....I trust his judgment.
Yes. We should all do this, if necessary.
Yep, I fully agree. Griswold is the better sword. Normally I would worry that even if we won here they could just end run us with a new tax-entitlement scheme and put all of it under the taxing power. But, now we have Brown in Mass. so they can't keep trying new tricks. It's this or start over. Nice job putting this together, Marlowe.
Please don’t be too sure the second won’t happen, though it will be armed RESTORATION, not at all to be confused with either rebellion or revolution.
Thank you for your wonderful post. I have not felt this optimistic since this monstrosity was passed. Please add me to your legal ping list.
Thanks again!
:)
Oh shit bump!
sir, please add me to your ping list?
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.