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

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

[fight_truth_decay]

The controversy last week over Senator Rick Santorum's remarks about the slippery slope of the Supreme Court finding a right to any kind of consensual sex based on a "right to privacy" in the penumbra of the Constitution, has had one benefit: A well- known liberal commentator on political issues has conceded his naivete about which rights are in the Constitution.

On Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, Maher admitted: "This has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

Maher's admission of his naivete came after columnist/author Ann Coulter observed on the April 25 program: "I think what he said was completely defensible and I think it's an important point, which is, you know, the Constitution describes a limited form of government and then there's a Bill of Rights with very few rights. And I think that Americans should start to recognize there are a lot of good things that aren't constitutional rights." Maher then conceded: "You know what, this has been a learning experience for me. I also thought that privacy was something we were granted in the Constitution. I have learned from this when in fact the word privacy does not appear in the Constitution."

You wonder how many journalists share Maher's basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a lack of knowledge which may explain much of the bad reporting on the matter.

A right to "privacy" was first broached by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v Connecticut decision overturning a state ban on birth control and solidified in the majority's Roe v Wade discovery of a privacy right in the "penumbra" of the Constitution in order to find rationale for overturning state bans on abortion. But it isn't in the Constitution.

On March 28, Maher won the MRC's "Ashamed of the Red, White, and Blue Award" at our "DisHonors Awards: Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters of 2002." His winner, from a November 1, 2002 appearance on CNN's Larry King Live:

Maher: "We take pride in being big charity givers. We're in fact dead last among the industrialized nations. We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. 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. We're oblivious to suffering."

King: "And so we are hated because of this?"

Maher: "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."

HBO's site for Real Time with Bill Maher, which has aired Friday nights at 11:30pm EDT/PDT: http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/

Starting this Friday, Maher's show will be replaced for ten weeks by On the Record with Bob Costas. But the time slot will still feature left-wing anti-war activists: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins will be on Costas' first show this Friday.

When posted, this CyberAlert will be readable at: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030428.asp

[El Gato]

For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.

Well not really, since the enumerated list of rights, including those in the main body of the Constitution as well as those in amendments one through eight, is not long. It's just that those aren't all our rights.

[El Gato]

The Constitution says nothing about the right of consenting adults to marry, yet there is no doubt that the right exists.

Indeed it does, and it's protected from governmental infringement by both the 9th and 10th amendments. When the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, marriage was not a concern of government at least not of legislautres. It was a concern mainly of the churches, and secondarily of the courts. Hence "common law marriage", which is marriage outside both church and state.

The same is true of birth records. Those were strictly private and church business until much more recently than the late 1700s.

[aruanan]

So they stuck in a clause specifically to avoid that... the constitution makes plain that the listing is in no way meant to limit or disparage other rights retained by the people.

For Ann Coulter to say "We have a list of very few rights" is the worst fear realized. She's mistaken, and in a big way.

So sad.

[El Gato]

Look up the word. It means something even less than "shadow".

Actually something more specific than "shadow". It's a partial shadow, caused by the light source not being a point, but rather an extended or area source, like the sun, rather than like a star. The area in the penumbra is only shadowed from part of the light source, not all of it.

[SarahW]

It's a mistake because she means to imply that those are our rights, and the constitution protects no others.

[eno_]

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

DING! We have a winner!

The quiz to spot morons from the left or right (or especially in a police uniform) is to ask:

"Name one unenumerated right."

Any statist JBT, of either the Hutchinson or Hillary flavor, will just stare at you as if you had two heads.

[btcusn]

When people get the idea that the ONLY rights we have are listed in the Constitution and bill of rights we are in deep trouble. We have many rights not listed.
The Constitution was written to limit the power of a central government, NOT to limit the rights of the people!!

Jack

[demosthenes the elder]

heh... they should pay you for the privilege ;)

[headsonpikes]

bump!

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

You're right. I do genealogy as a hobby, and most birth certificates (state-issued) don't exist until around the late 1800's if you're lucky...1900-10 if you're not.

[Rummyfan]

Maher: "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."

That is the most outrageous statement yet from any 'celebrity' concerning the war in general. If Ann Coulter weren't on his show I wonder how small his audience would be......

Thinks he's Mort Sahl.....only a lot dumber!

[Rummyfan]

Curious to see what kind of box office his show gets in New York.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You mean he wouldn't know his a-hole from a hole?

[Rummyfan]

Penumbra - smoke and mirrors! As AC has said, when the Supremes have to reference the penumbra of the Constitution, they are making law out of whole cloth!

[Rummyfan]

Missed it myself..... waiting for a rebroadcast tomorrow night. Please tell me Michael Eric Dyson was not on!

[alwaysconservative]

I also give Maher SOME credit for publicly admitting when he's wrong. It's something so few leftists do. However, the part about America being "dead last" is another major whopper. I saw a study a few years back (even before the outpouring after 9/11) about the difference in the levels of charitable giving of US citizens and Canadians, who were the next closest to us in per capita giving. Suffice it to say that Americans out-gave every other country in the world AND in almost all instances, gave more than the rest of the countries combined. I just wish I could remember where I saw the article. . .

[AMNZ]

I am seriesly offended. Coulter, and not a single picture!

[ChemistCat]

We could do a tremendous amount of good with what we give, if it wasn't so badly misused by saddamalikes.

[sticker]

If someone on the left doesn't know what they h@ll they are talking about the media calls it naivete. If a conservative doesn't know what they are talking about they call them stupid. But there is no media bias