Posted on 04/28/2003 8:19:50 AM PDT by 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
I either get stuff on Chile and junk that I have to wade through or nothing of help at all.
The wonder of Free Republic is that, oftentimes, Freepers interested in a matter have done the wading, have reliable sources and are only too glad to share them.
With the responses I've had to this simple question, I'm beginning to wonder about this subject. I just want to know the true situation of foreign aid compared to other nations'. The "go find it from scratch" response makes me wonder if my belief that of course the U.S. gives more in aid is based on anything tangible.
Not so. That's why I mentioned Marbury vs. Madison. If you are interested in Constitutional law, you need to start with that case.
Thanks for the tip - I will go read Marbury vs. Madison. I am interested in Constitutional law and always enjoy learning more. It's something I wished I'd gotten to study more in school.
Reproduction as free speech? Interesting argument.
I guess it depends on the noises made...never mind!
Not at all..took no time to find.
Yes, the 4th Amendment is important here. I've been quoting it to other libertarians today. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
Now from that you deduce that we have a Law Free Private Zone, or the Mythical Right To Privacy?
Good golly, people, first I see all these Libertarians running around like chickens with their heads cut off shreaking about this being the beginning of an Orwellian conspriracy, but the 4th Amendment should calm the fears of that conspiracy. So you read that, quote from it, yet still can't see the truth!
The operative word in the Amendment is unreasonable meaning get a bench warrent. Are you worried about a judge swearing out a warrent for a Class C misdemeanor of Sodomy in Texas? No. Now if your beloved Right To Privacy isn't fought against by conservatives, all the issues Santorum spoke of, in addition to dealing drugs, prostitution, you name it-become sealed off from Justice. Where do you draw the line? You CAN'T when you add to the Constitution this canard of an arguement.
IF a cop has reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is being committed and he has to have more evidence than simply suspicion, he can get a warrant and begin the process to prosecute the crime. However, misdemeanors like sodomy in the privacy of one's home are rarely prosecuted.
Read more of my posts on this thread.
What in the world spiked you peoples' water? The Right To Privacy is not written in the The Bill Of Rights, nor the subsequent Amendments. Yet with some Judicial Activism not half a century ago, you people think its gospel. The Law Free Private Zone is not enumerated by the Founding Fathers not because they didn't want to spell out every Right in order to save ink or not have all Rights limited, its because this Law Free Private Zone is an obvious (duh!) rationalization for anarchy and the Founders are smarter than Libertarians and Liberal Judges.
In short the so called Bill of Rights is incorrectly named. It should be called the Bill of Not's.
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.