Maher Admits Naivete, Thought "Right to Privacy" in Constitution (Coulter)

MRC ^ | 10:20am EDT, Monday April 28, 2003 | BrentBaker

[fight_truth_decay]

Maher has turned around alot since the onset of the war in Iraq. Denouncing those that continued to speak out against the President and the war 'after' its onset.

No Boys and Girls.. Bill has not been cancelled, Maher has just taken his act to Broadway opening May 5 @ the Virginia Theatre.

[biblewonk]

constitution ping.

[Brett66]

I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them.

This clown is obssesed with foreign aid, it's like some sort of utopian fulfillment for him, despite all evidence of how it's misused. He's just plain weird.

[Uncle Miltie]

"I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

But we can still slaughter about a million babies a year on the basis of a "privacy" right that does not exist. Roe v. Wade is make-believe law based on judicial fiat, not constitutionality.

[jwalburg]

We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations.

What's the real scoop here. Doesn't the U.S. give out billions in foreign aid? Where can we find figures of this?

[Pete]

"Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

I simply cannot find the words to describe the stupidity and political blindness exhibited by his statement.

[Billthedrill]

"Frequently wrong, but never in doubt" describes a number of these pundits perfectly. I keep in my briefcase one of those little Cato Institute pocket copies of the Constitution which has proven invaluable in political debate - it takes 45 minutes to read it from cover to cover, including all the amendments and the Declaration of Independence to boot. For an investment of 45 minutes Mahr and his fellow travelers could actually know what they're talking about for a change. But it can be uncomfortable to find out, for example, that freedom from religion does not appear in the First Amendment and that the Second isn't as murky and cryptic as has been claimed. For the politically immature, uncertainty is merely a sign of weakness, and it is more comfortable to be certain than to be right.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

we're not granted anything by the Constitution. He's still an idiot.

[fight_truth_decay]

The Court first enunciated the right to privacy in Griswold vs. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the Court ruled unconstitutional a Connecticut birth-control law. Justice Douglas, writing for the majority, argued (plausibly enough) that marriage was so important that the state had no business interfering with the privacy fundamental to a healthy relationship between husband and wife.

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred."

While privacy is not among the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has nevertheless ruled that a fundamental right to privacy is clearly found in the penumbra (shadow) of the First Amendment. Or the shadow of the Third Amendment. Or the Fourth. Or the Fifth. Or the Ninth. Or maybe it's the Fourteenth. Or perhaps it emanates from all of them; it's hard to tell with shadows.Daily Cnservative

[js1138]

The question is not whether the word privacy is included in the constitution, nor whether it is implied. The question is whether privacy is a natural right, and therefore included in Ammendment Nine.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Here is another one for you Maher; neither constitutions nor governments grant rights.

[goodnesswins]

You reminded me....I'm going to get my grandson and his siblings to nand write the Bill of Rights this summer....(I'll pay them - as it's the only way they would ever do it.)

[Congressman Billybob]

I second your motion. I, too, carry with me the Cato Institute edition of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It fits neatly in any pocket. It's cleanly typeset. And Cato Institute will send copies for $1 each, as many as you choose, to anyone who asks through their website. (The $1 doesn't even cover the printing and postage costs. It's a good deal.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

Also, my latest UPI article on "The Iraq Constitution" is posted on FR.

[goodnesswins]

YES, we give the MOST in foreign aid....(because we have the most to give,) but per capita is how they get this statement I believe.....and then they usually compare it to how much countries spend on defense and use that against us, too.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think we don't have the same sort of foreign-aid budget that we once did; it kinda fell into disfavor due to its rather outstanding lack of success in forwarding development of "developing" nations.

We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations.

I also think that that statement is socialist-speak. I suspect that if you look at private charity donations and not not just government "foreign aid", the picture is probably the reverse of what's indicated in the quote.

[tictoc]

Foreign aid is one thing, foreign trade is another.

Europeans, who are so smug about spending a greater percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) on foreign aid, also have erected higher barriers than the U.S. against imports (especially agricultural products) from third-world countries.

I find that hypocritical, because I believe that most people would prefer to work, and earn, their way out of poverty instead of receiving charity.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery

No shortage of socialist-speak in that line! Perfectly true, too--leaving aside the fact that we're already taxed to the point of diminishing returns, and that even so there's still plenty of "misery" (as in, people living at a standard of living no better than that of a prosperous American farmer, circa 1820) to go around.

[Princeliberty]

Correct our Rights were present before the
Constitution, ultimately a true "Right"
is given to man form God and therefore
government cannot challenge it.

Also, one the reasons we should throw
the term around and claiming we
have right to everything to
form a car to good dates.

[Mike Darancette]

I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution.

One time on Mahr's ABC show some Hollyweird Liberal stated that the Supreme Court was Constitutionally under the Justice Department and that Ashcroft would tell them what to do.

The Airhead was not corrected.

[grobdriver]

"Yes I think so. I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn't have to kill them for their oil."

I simply cannot find the words to describe the stupidity and political blindness exhibited by his statement.

Well find them, quick - because you took them right out of my mouth!