Constitution doesn’t mention health care

[Tech_Esq]

The nature and character of the Constitution is to create a limited government. To that end, there is an enumerated list of particulars that this limited government can do. All else is prohibited to it. If you insist on reading it as you do, I have a note from Mr. Madison to you:

The nature and the character of the Constitution is to protect individual LIBERTIES from governmental interference. And that is why there is a right of privacy that logically flows from the Bill of Rights. As for Madison, again, intersting in terms of history, it isn't law. As you know, the caselaw would better set forth the limits that exist or do not.

I don't think you can ignore that the Constitution sets up a system of government. And, while it is protective of individual liberty, it is not nearly as protective as what it replaced. Remember the arguments of the Anti-federalists, as Kevin has been pointing out. These new and increased powers of the central government gave them no comfort at all. Indeed, the only way the Constitution was ratified was the promise of an actual Bill of Rights.

I'm only citing Madison for the limited purpose of explaining the actual mechanics of the sentence that he wrote. I'm not citing him for any legal purpose or for his view on what the law is. In my view, some are guilty on here of improperly construing this sentence and reading it in a manner that was never intend nor could it properly be read that way. In this particular case, we have Madison defending the actual construction of the the sentence against the anti-federalist charges that it give the central government too much power (power that is now claimed by Centrist and Nik). I think for the limited purpose of clarifying any misconception concerning how the sentence should be read, Madison's explanation should be given great weight.

 

[jillian]

I don't think you can ignore that the Constitution sets up a system of government. And, while it is protective of individual liberty, it is not nearly as protective as what it replaced. Remember the arguments of the Anti-federalists, as Kevin has been pointing out. These new and increased powers of the central government gave them no comfort at all. Indeed, the only way the Constitution was ratified was the promise of an actual Bill of Rights.

It does set up a system of government. I'm afraid, though, that I disagree 100% that the Articles of Confederation were more protective of individual rights. That would presume that the State of New York, somehow protects my individual liberties better than the Federal Government does. I think that's a fallacious assumption. Were it not the case, it wouldn't have taken the FEDERAL government to strike down Jim Crowe laws and force racists to end segregation.... of keep the State of VA from outlawing interracial marriage, or the state of Connecticut from trying to keep people from buying condoms.

I'm only citing Madison for the limited purpose of explaining the actual mechanics of the sentence that he wrote. I'm not citing him for any legal purpose or for his view on what the law is. In my view, some are guilty on here of improperly construing this sentence and reading it in a manner that was never intend nor could it properly be read that way. In this particular case, we have Madison defending the actual construction of the the sentence against the anti-federalist charges that it give the central government too much power (power that is now claimed by Centrist and Nik). I think for the limited purpose of clarifying any misconception concerning how the sentence should be read, Madison's explanation should be given great weight.

Fair enough... again, I find the whole "originalist" way of thinking a bit counter-intuitive and it certainly hasn't been reflected in the caselaw since Marbury v Madison.

Until Scalia decided to try to pervert the Constitution to advance a right wing objective, anyway.

And speaking of Scalia, I find the whole "activist judge" concept so misleading... Activism is striking down the legislative action of a state; overturning a ruling made by the highest court of a state; and directing a state to act or not act.'

It is the JOB of the high court to do those things when the action of a state, highest court of a state or inaction (or action) by a state provides a person with lesser protections than the Federal Constitution (or other law) does.

And the Court is supposed to be the last bastion of "liberalism" because our Founders were RADICALS and is supposed to get in the way of infringement of OUR rights.

Sayig that the point of the constitution is for small government ignores the REASON that our government was supposed to be kept small... SO IT COULDN'T INFRINGE ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. So to construe the constitution in any way that impairs the right of the individual and rely on "originalism" to do so, violates the inherant nature of the document.

 

[Tech_Esq]

But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.

I'd say he knows more than Jefferson's opinion did about our caselaw.

"Centrist" is arguing that there are no functional limits on Congressional power. I don't think you are arguing that are you?

While I have you on the line, was SCOTUS correct in overruling Hamer v. Dagenhart? If so, why? Are the interests of limited government and protect of the rights of individual liberty better served by a government whose only end of power is that which it gives itself?

 

[Bern80]

They don't think your full of shit (or at the very least being purpossfully obtuse). Ah, news flash. Yes they do.

the people who actually know something about the law don't....

People who 'know' things, more often than not, over complicate things for the purpose of showing people how much the 'know'. As I said before, the constitution is a bit simpler than people like yourself would like it to be. Anyone trying to read between the lines, or come up with off base interpretation is simply trying to justify what they would like to see government do.

 

[jillian]

People who 'know' things, more often than not, over complicate things for the purpose of showing people how much the 'know'. As I said before, the constitution is a bit simpler than people like yourself would like it to be. Anyone trying to read between the lines, or come up with off base interpretation is simply trying to justify what they would like to see government do.

yeah, you're right... people who study the constitution know far less about the constitution than self-professed "experts".

Not even the people on the bench agree on it's meaning.

 

[jillian]

But, of course, people like Centrist know more than Jefferson did, I guess.

I'd say he knows more than Jefferson's opinion did about our caselaw.

"Centrist" is arguing that there are no functional limits on Congressional power. I don't think you are arguing that are you?

While I have you on the line, was SCOTUS correct in overruling Hamer v. Dagenhart? If so, why? Are the interests of limited government and protect of the rights of individual liberty better served by a government whose only end of power is that which it gives itself?

Is Centrist arguing that there are no functional limits? I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm getting. I do think he's saying that there's great leeway in what government can do between the commerce clase and the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause.

Technically, nowhere in the constitution does it say that government can protect us from discrimination by private employers. It says GOVERNMENt can't disparately treat people, but individual companies? Yet, our CONSTITUTIONAL laws, like the enabling legislation for the EEOC, do just that (notwithstanding recent attempts to eviscerate those laws a la Ledbetter v. Goodyear)

Damn right they were correct in overturning Dagenhart based on the commerce clause. They relied upon Justice Holmes' dissent in in that case to do so.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices, could barely contain his Contempt for the majority's interpretation. He faulted the Court for imposing personal values "upon questions of policy and morals." In a famous statement, Holmes declared: "I should have thought that if we were to introduce our own moral conceptions where, in my opinion, they do not belong, this was preeminently a case for upholding the exercise of all its powers by the United States."Holmes rejected the idea that Congress could not prohibit the movement of goods in interstate commerce, whether the products were judged harmful in themselves or the result of a harmful practice. He stated that "Regulation means the prohibition of something," and then referred to prior rulings where the Court had upheld federal laws that had prohibited actions contrary to the wishes of Congress. In his view, Congress had sufficient authority to regulate child labor. The states were free to regulate their internal affairs, but once goods crossed state lines, the Commerce Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate these shipments.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Dagenhart in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941). In its ruling, the Court acknowledged the "powerful and now classic dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes.

Hammer v. Dagenhart legal definition of Hammer v. Dagenhart. Hammer v. Dagenhart synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm not sure I understand why you would object to Dagenhart being overturned any more than one would object to Plessy v Ferguson being overturned. There is a greater societal interest in both that states do not always protect.

Since it offends you that Dagenhart was reversed, implying that it should have been binding precedent, do you never think cases should be reconsidered a la Plessy?

 

[Tech_Esq]

It does set up a system of government. I'm afraid, though, that I disagree 100% that the Articles of Confederation were more protective of individual rights. That would presume that the State of New York, somehow protects my individual liberties better than the Federal Government does. I think that's a fallacious assumption. Were it not the case, it wouldn't have taken the FEDERAL government to strike down Jim Crowe laws and force racists to end segregation.... of keep the State of VA from outlawing interracial marriage, or the state of Connecticut from trying to keep people from buying condoms.

When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?

A couple of examples where states have violated rights compared to the mass internment of Japanese Americans whose only crime was they were of Japanese decent? You can't even claim the high ground for the central government on slavery.

Currently, they are justifying takings for commercial interests. How does that protect individual liberty?

Specious argument on Griswold. You know as well as I do that was a case made up by law professors at Yale. You also know that they failed to get Connecticut to enforce that law on several occasions. The fact of the matter is that until the Yale law professors over a period of years concocted a way to force the state to enforce the law, nobody was enforcing a law on purchasing condoms. Should it have been taken off the books? Probably. But do you suppose the laws regulating what barbers can eat for lunch should be taken off the books also? Yeah.....dead weight gets left on the books. It's no reason to "invent" shit the Constitution doesn't have in it so you can justify striking an unused law down.

Fair enough... again, I find the whole "originalist" way of thinking a bit counter-intuitive and it certainly hasn't been reflected in the caselaw since Marbury v Madison.

Until Scalia decided to try to pervert the Constitution to advance a right wing objective, anyway.

I think your perverts are Brennan and Marshall, the bobsie twins of making up the law as you go along. As Thurgood said, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Some would say that's no way to run a railroad and sure way to start a tyranny!

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'd say he knows more than Jefferson's opinion did about our caselaw.

"Centrist" is arguing that there are no functional limits on Congressional power. I don't think you are arguing that are you?

While I have you on the line, was SCOTUS correct in overruling Hamer v. Dagenhart? If so, why? Are the interests of limited government and protect of the rights of individual liberty better served by a government whose only end of power is that which it gives itself?

Is Centrist arguing that there are no functional limits? I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm getting. I do think he's saying that there's great leeway in what government can do between the commerce clase and the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause.

Technically, nowhere in the constitution does it say that government can protect us from discrimination by private employers. It says GOVERNMENt can't disparately treat people, but individual companies? Yet, our CONSTITUTIONAL laws, like the enabling legislation for the EEOC, do just that (notwithstanding recent attempts to eviscerate those laws a la Ledbetter v. Goodyear)

Damn right they were correct in overturning Dagenhart based on the commerce clause. They relied upon Justice Holmes' dissent in in that case to do so.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices, could barely contain his Contempt for the majority's interpretation. He faulted the Court for imposing personal values "upon questions of policy and morals." In a famous statement, Holmes declared: "I should have thought that if we were to introduce our own moral conceptions where, in my opinion, they do not belong, this was preeminently a case for upholding the exercise of all its powers by the United States."Holmes rejected the idea that Congress could not prohibit the movement of goods in interstate commerce, whether the products were judged harmful in themselves or the result of a harmful practice. He stated that "Regulation means the prohibition of something," and then referred to prior rulings where the Court had upheld federal laws that had prohibited actions contrary to the wishes of Congress. In his view, Congress had sufficient authority to regulate child labor. The states were free to regulate their internal affairs, but once goods crossed state lines, the Commerce Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate these shipments.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Dagenhart in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941). In its ruling, the Court acknowledged the "powerful and now classic dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes.

Hammer v. Dagenhart legal definition of Hammer v. Dagenhart. Hammer v. Dagenhart synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm not sure I understand why you would object to Dagenhart being overturned any more than one would object to Plessy v Ferguson being overturned. There is a greater societal interest in both that states do not always protect.

Since it offends you that Dagenhart was reversed, implying that it should have been binding precedent, do you never think cases should be reconsidered a la Plessy?

The reason I oppose the Supreme Court's failure to follow Stare Decisis in the Darby case, is that in the process of doing some little good, they completely eviscerated one of the concepts that is fundemental to checks and balances -- federalism. By Overruling Hammer the way it did and pronouncing the 10th Amendment little more than a truism and unenforceable, the Supreme Court opened the door wide to an unstoppable growth in central government power which must end in a tyranny. The only question is how long it takes to get there.

So, I completely disagree that the interest served a greater social purpose. Holmes may have been right about regulating tainted milk, but that rectitude does not spread to the court in Darby as much as they would like to wrap themselves in it.

 

[jillian]

When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?

I'd say it depends on whether you lived in one of the 13 states and needed the federal government to intervene.

A couple of examples where states have violated rights compared to the mass internment of Japanese Americans whose only crime was they were of Japanese decent? You can't even claim the high ground for the central government on slavery.

I think we both know there are good and bad courts when it comes to protecting individuals. It's impossible not to recognize that who is appointed to the bench by a sitting president matters.... same as it's absurd to pretend that EVERY judge isn't activist. I liked what was said at the hearing... "activist judges are the judges you disagree with". And yes, cases like Plessy and Dred Scott and Korematsu are national disgraces.

Currently, they are justifying takings for commercial interests. How does that protect individual liberty?

Those cases, while the results suck, are a logical extension of every zoning case since Euclid.

Specious argument on Griswold. You know as well as I do that was a case made up by law professors at Yale. You also know that they failed to get Connecticut to enforce that law on several occasions. The fact of the matter is that until the Yale law professors over a period of years concocted a way to force the state to enforce the law, nobody was enforcing a law on purchasing condoms. Should it have been taken off the books? Probably. But do you suppose the laws regulating what barbers can eat for lunch should be taken off the books also? Yeah.....dead weight gets left on the books. It's no reason to "invent" shit the Constitution doesn't have in it so you can justify striking an unused law down.

Griswold was dead on right. No one forced the State of Connecticut to enforce those laws. And no one forced them to put those laws on the book. Same as the anti-miscegenation (sp?) laws struck down in Loving.

I think your perverts are Brennan and Marshall, the bobsie twins of making up the law as you go along. As Thurgood said, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Again, given that I believe the Court is supposed to be the last line of defense between us and our government (not the "state"... but US), I think you'll have to find other judges to hate.

Some would say that's no way to run a railroad and sure way to start a tyranny!

How so? By telling state governments they can't discriminate or interfere in people's personal lives?

I don't want government in my bedroom......

 

[jillian]

"Centrist" is arguing that there are no functional limits on Congressional power. I don't think you are arguing that are you?

While I have you on the line, was SCOTUS correct in overruling Hamer v. Dagenhart? If so, why? Are the interests of limited government and protect of the rights of individual liberty better served by a government whose only end of power is that which it gives itself?

Is Centrist arguing that there are no functional limits? I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm getting. I do think he's saying that there's great leeway in what government can do between the commerce clase and the general welfare clause and the supremacy clause.

Technically, nowhere in the constitution does it say that government can protect us from discrimination by private employers. It says GOVERNMENt can't disparately treat people, but individual companies? Yet, our CONSTITUTIONAL laws, like the enabling legislation for the EEOC, do just that (notwithstanding recent attempts to eviscerate those laws a la Ledbetter v. Goodyear)

Damn right they were correct in overturning Dagenhart based on the commerce clause. They relied upon Justice Holmes' dissent in in that case to do so.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a dissenting opinion joined by three other justices, could barely contain his Contempt for the majority's interpretation. He faulted the Court for imposing personal values "upon questions of policy and morals." In a famous statement, Holmes declared: "I should have thought that if we were to introduce our own moral conceptions where, in my opinion, they do not belong, this was preeminently a case for upholding the exercise of all its powers by the United States."Holmes rejected the idea that Congress could not prohibit the movement of goods in interstate commerce, whether the products were judged harmful in themselves or the result of a harmful practice. He stated that "Regulation means the prohibition of something," and then referred to prior rulings where the Court had upheld federal laws that had prohibited actions contrary to the wishes of Congress. In his view, Congress had sufficient authority to regulate child labor. The states were free to regulate their internal affairs, but once goods crossed state lines, the Commerce Clause gave Congress the authority to regulate these shipments.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Dagenhart in United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 657, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941). In its ruling, the Court acknowledged the "powerful and now classic dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes.

Hammer v. Dagenhart legal definition of Hammer v. Dagenhart. Hammer v. Dagenhart synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I'm not sure I understand why you would object to Dagenhart being overturned any more than one would object to Plessy v Ferguson being overturned. There is a greater societal interest in both that states do not always protect.

Since it offends you that Dagenhart was reversed, implying that it should have been binding precedent, do you never think cases should be reconsidered a la Plessy?

The reason I oppose the Supreme Court's failure to follow Stare Decisis in the Darby case, is that in the process of doing some little good, they completely eviscerated one of the concepts that is fundemental to checks and balances -- federalism. By Overruling Hammer the way it did and pronouncing the 10th Amendment little more than a truism and unenforceable, the Supreme Court opened the door wide to an unstoppable growth in central government power which must end in a tyranny. The only question is how long it takes to get there.

So, I completely disagree that the interest served a greater social purpose. Holmes may have been right about regulating tainted milk, but that rectitude does not spread to the court in Darby as much as they would like to wrap themselves in it.

The Court had already upheld the Mann Act and other restraints on what could be moved through interstate commerce.

And I guess what you think the Court has the right to do, ultimately comes down to the type of society you wish to live in.

And that's why there are 9 Justices..... so each brings to the court their worldview and experience and knowledge.

As for stare decisis, I think you'll find that Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in it at all.

And if what troubles you is "activist judges" I think you'll find that “from 1994 to 2005....Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/o...n=Top/Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Editorials

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

The reason I oppose the Supreme Court's failure to follow Stare Decisis in the Darby case, is that in the process of doing some little good, they completely eviscerated one of the concepts that is fundemental to checks and balances -- federalism. By Overruling Hammer the way it did and pronouncing the 10th Amendment little more than a truism and unenforceable, the Supreme Court opened the door wide to an unstoppable growth in central government power which must end in a tyranny. The only question is how long it takes to get there.

This is beginning to sound like fodder for the Conspiracy Theories thread.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

I have asked my liberal friends, “If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people?” They usually answer, “Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.”

My question then is, “So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone else’s health care?” At this point, they will say something like, “You’re already paying for other people’s health care,” or, “That’s the wrong way to look at it,” or, “That sounds selfish,” or just “Yes.”

If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?

More at link..

The government doesn't answer to the people any longer, We lost control a long time ago when they lied and the people did nothing.
Now we will have to burn down DC before they burn down everyones homes.

Thomas Jefferson On The Central Bank System - The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.

 

[jillian]

Which would be FDR's Supreme Court in 1941. United States v. Darby Lumber Co. that did not respect Supreme Court precedent and overruled Hamer v. Dagenhart.

Should the Court have upheld Plessy, too?

 

[jillian]

It seems to me that if you give the central government all the power you take away all the safety if the central government turns tyrannical which of course they have to. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At least with a federal system, the chances are you'd have some sanctuary some place in the country. The federal government is no source of comfort when they have suspended Habius Corpus, conducted mass internments without cause, protected Jim Crow laws and on and on. Their most recent bender has been in failing to respect private property rights. I think that any trust in government is misplaced. I would only trust a government that is set against itself by its internal processes. Hopefully, the Supremes with put a tooth or two back in Federalism by the cases that will work their way through court as the states are pushing back this year.

I'm not going to get into the power corrupts thing.. of course it does, but not allowing child labor isn't that. And I'm pretty sure that if we were talking about Roe v Wade, you'd be laughing at slippery slope arguments.

You say you understand that we are bound by stare decisis... yet you object to the decisions you disagree with and say they ruined the constitution. Don't you think that's a bit self-serving.

As for the property rights issue, as I think I've already said, I don't like the recent results of those cases, but they were absolutely consistent with all of the caselaw on zoning since Euclid.

On the health care issue. I think there are things the federal government could do within its limits that would dramatically change things for the better. I'm unimpressed the "everybody else does it" argument. Everyone else has a board that decides who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment. Comparing the moral imperatives of covering everyone or proactively denying care to some of the covered, I'm not at all sure who has the upper hand.

Insurance companies have claims reps who decide "who lives and dies based on a process of rationing care and treatment"

17-Year-Old Cancer Survivor Dies After Transplant Is Finally Approved By CIGNA - cbs2.com

Teen Dies after CIGNA Refuses To Pay for Transplant

I think the government should pull down the false wall that prevents everyone in the country from having access to the same policies. I think there is a role for the government to create a pool of insurance and treat it as a regulated utility. If insurers which to provide health insurance, they may participate in the pool. The government will ensure a profit of some kind. The insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage. All policies will be high deductible policies. Poor people will have their deductible covered. Everyone will have an HSA that allows them to save, tax deferred, monies for medical care usage. Doctors must make the cost of every treatment transparent so that consumers can shop for their medical care. Lastly, the policy is paid by taxes.

Sounds like you're saying that the government should tell the corporations how to operate but not get involved themselves. That's fine in terms of what you think should be done as a policy. But certainly there's no constitutional requirement that they do things the way you want.

Concerning the founders, I know what you are saying, however, I'll bet that if we start talking about the separation of church and state, you'll place an awful lot of emphasis in a private letter that Jefferson wrote to some guy saying that their should be a "wall of separation between church and state."

The Constitution is very specific that government have nothing to do with religion. To effectuate that, there can't be anything BUT separation of church and state, regardless of what Jefferson wrote. I happen to agree with him, but since you also know the founders were largely deists who hated mixing religion and government, you should be supporting that pov.

Again though, I think the more powerful argument concerns the reading of and the nature of a written Constitution. It is written for a reason. It is not just legislation. This document was approved by the people as an agreement to by them to be governed in a specific manner. This is binding on future generations. There is an amendment process and indeed the Constitution has been amended in significant ways over the years. If the Constitution truly doesn't fit way the governed wish to currently be governed, the solution is amendment or dissolution of the Constitution, not ignoring it.

We aren't a "code state" like france... we have a body of caselaw and a common law system that construes statutes... even the Constitution.

 

[sealybobo]

Constitution doesn’t mention health care - Las Vegas Sun

I have asked my liberal friends, “If I buy my health care directly from my doctor, why would you require me to pay taxes to buy health care for other people?” They usually answer, “Because everyone has a right to health care, and we are all in this together.”

My question then is, “So was I born with an obligation to work to pay for someone else’s health care?” At this point, they will say something like, “You’re already paying for other people’s health care,” or, “That’s the wrong way to look at it,” or, “That sounds selfish,” or just “Yes.”

If health care is a right, then the government must provide for it, as it does national defense and public safety and a judicial system. If it is not, then government has no more business being involved in it than it has in grocery stores or hotels or automobiles. So is health care a right?

More at link..

It also doesn't mention oral sex, so make sure you warn every woman you are ever with that if they go down on you, it is unconstitutional.

 

[Tech_Esq]

When it comes to Jim Crow, remember, the central government was for it before it was against it. Remember also that most states didn't have Jim Crow laws, only about 13 did. So, from 1900 to 1955 who was a better protector of rights the 35 states without Jim Crow laws or the central government who gave us Plessy?

I'd say it depends on whether you lived in one of the 13 states and needed the federal government to intervene.

A couple of examples where states have violated rights compared to the mass internment of Japanese Americans whose only crime was they were of Japanese decent? You can't even claim the high ground for the central government on slavery.

I think we both know there are good and bad courts when it comes to protecting individuals. It's impossible not to recognize that who is appointed to the bench by a sitting president matters.... same as it's absurd to pretend that EVERY judge isn't activist. I liked what was said at the hearing... "activist judges are the judges you disagree with". And yes, cases like Plessy and Dred Scott and Korematsu are national disgraces.



Those cases, while the results suck, are a logical extension of every zoning case since Euclid.



Griswold was dead on right. No one forced the State of Connecticut to enforce those laws. And no one forced them to put those laws on the book. Same as the anti-miscegenation (sp?) laws struck down in Loving.

I think your perverts are Brennan and Marshall, the bobsie twins of making up the law as you go along. As Thurgood said, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

Again, given that I believe the Court is supposed to be the last line of defense between us and our government (not the "state"... but US), I think you'll have to find other judges to hate.

Some would say that's no way to run a railroad and sure way to start a tyranny!

How so? By telling state governments they can't discriminate or interfere in people's personal lives?

I don't want government in my bedroom......

I'll come back to the points in another post, but I'd like to align myself with the legal reasoning of Justices Black and Stewart who wrote:

Since 1879, Connecticut has had on its books a law which forbids the use of contraceptives by anyone. I think this is an uncommonly silly law. As a practical matter, the law is obviously unenforceable, except in the oblique context of the present case. As a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choice, based upon each individual's moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. As a matter of social policy, I think professional counsel about methods of birth control should be available to all, so that each individual's choice can be meaningfully made. But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do.

In the course of its opinion, the Court refers to no less than six Amendments to the Constitution: the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Ninth, and the Fourteenth. But the Court does not say which of these Amendments, if any, it thinks is infringed by this Connecticut law.

We are told that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not, as such, the "guide" in this case. With that much, I agree. There is no claim that this law, duly enacted by the Connecticut Legislature, is unconstitutionally vague. There is no claim that the appellants were denied any of the elements of procedural due process at their trial, so as to make their convictions constitutionally invalid. And, as the Court says, the day has long passed since the Due Process Clause was regarded as a proper instrument for determining "the wisdom, need, and propriety" of state laws. Compare Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, with Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726. My Brothers HARLAN and WHITE to the contrary,

[w]e have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.

Ferguson v. Skrupa, supra, at 730

As to the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, I can find nothing in any of them to invalidate this Connecticut law, even assuming that all those Amendments are fully applicable against the States. It has not even been argued that this is a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And surely, unless the solemn process of constitutional adjudication is to descend to the level of a play on words, there is not involved here any abridgment of

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No soldier has been quartered in any house. There has been no search, and no seizure. Nobody has been compelled to be a witness against himself.

The Court also quotes the Ninth Amendment, and my Brother GOLDBERG's concurring opinion relies heavily upon it. But to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered," United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124, was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder.

What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.

At the oral argument in this case, we were told that the Connecticut law does not "conform to current community standards." But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect he standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.

 

[Navy1960]

The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life."

Is Government Health Care Constitutional? - WSJ.com

I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would turn around and abandon those same principles.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I'd say it depends on whether you lived in one of the 13 states and needed the federal government to intervene.

I think we both know there are good and bad courts when it comes to protecting individuals. It's impossible not to recognize that who is appointed to the bench by a sitting president matters.... same as it's absurd to pretend that EVERY judge isn't activist. I liked what was said at the hearing... "activist judges are the judges you disagree with". And yes, cases like Plessy and Dred Scott and Korematsu are national disgraces.

My point was that the Federal Government has been guilty of infringing personal liberty too. The difference is that when they do it EVERYBODY suffers. I hardly think becoming all philosophical about the shortcomings of various courts is any salve to those whose rights are impinged by the central government anymore than it is when a state gets it wrong. The difference is that when a state gets it wrong, only the people of that state suffer. I would much rather suffer with a single tyrannical state where I can simply cross the state line to free myself of the evil, than a tyrannical central government that would require me to flee my home country to be free again.

Griswold was dead on right. No one forced the State of Connecticut to enforce those laws. And no one forced them to put those laws on the book. Same as the anti-miscegenation (sp?) laws struck down in Loving.

Black and Stewart had it right and the other justices were on some serious drugs for all the reasons Black mentions in dissent.

Again, given that I believe the Court is supposed to be the last line of defense between us and our government (not the "state"... but US), I think you'll have to find other judges to hate.

(shiver) how very "results oriented" of you. Your name isn't Joan Williams is it? ...Just checking. You're sounding very much like my Property Law prof. The problem with this type of thinking and usage by the court is that your ideology may be in the minority one day. And, instead of making decisions you like, the court may make a bunch of laws you dislike and enslave you. But, since they would do so in the guise of "interpreting the Constitution," you would have no recourse but amendment to the Constitution.

I believe the left understands this and that's why they kick and struggle so mightily when the right puts up judges. (Not to mention the justice department hissy fit the left through when the right started counter-politicizing the justice department. That was a rare level of hypocrisy itself.)

How so? By telling state governments they can't discriminate or interfere in people's personal lives?

No. By shredding the structures of our government and ripping apart the delicate system of checks and balances that was put in place to protect the people from the growth of a tyrannical government.

The states were meant to zealously guard their powers which were left to them and not given to the federal government. By removing that ability of the states to defend themselves from the federal government, a fuse was lit that will eventually lead to a tyrannical central government. There can be no alternative future. Governments will always seek more power and more to regulate. Now that there is no real check against this, the question not whether they will become tyrannical, but when.

I don't want government in my bedroom......

I pass by Capital Hill again next Tuesday, I'll be sure and let them know.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

It also doesn't mention oral sex, so make sure you warn every woman you are ever with that if they go down on you, it is unconstitutional.

The consitutionia supposed to be handcuffs on the government , not people.

 

[jillian]

I find it interesting the same party that would advocate pro-choice as a party platform would then in the same breath under the guise of socially norming everyone, would turn around and abandon those same principles.

You mean me?

Interesting analogy but we're not talking about anyone forcing or denying a particular type of medical procedure, are we?