Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[geauxtohell]

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

Really--you don't think Rick Santorum would sign an executive order banning all birth control devices---

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo"]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]


I wouldn't be too certain about that--- Furthermore--do you really believe this far right wing stance--is going to win in the general election against Barack Obama??- I can see the advertisements now.

And he's correct. He's addressing social issues that tend to carry over into other areas of societal evolution.

Shit man? YOU are acting like some of our Statist bretheren here...

Wake up.

Yeah Oreo. How dare you question the positions of someone that wants your vote for the highest office in the land?

Does he have an R behind his name?

Then what more could you fucking need?

"Anyone but Obama!"

 

[The T]

I agree that it's completely unlikely considering he doesnt have a habit of doing the opposite of what he said, like some candidates.

Really--you don't think Rick Santorum would sign an executive order banning all birth control devices---

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo"]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]


I wouldn't be too certain about that--- Furthermore--do you really believe this far right wing stance--is going to win in the general election against Barack Obama??- I can see the advertisements now.

Oreo, your a better poster than that....please show where Santorum has ever said that he would back legislation for a ban.

Santorum hasn't.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

states have the right to just about anything that is not in the Constitution....

That's not in the Constitution.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment compels the states to abide the Bill of Rights where incorporated; states must also abide each citizen’s due process rights, and allow citizens equal access to all laws, among other things.

The right to marry, the right to vote, the right to self-defense, the individual right to own firearms, the right to move about the country freely, and the right to privacy are all part of the Constitution, that the actual words aren’t in the text of the Constitution is irrelevant.

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

And that one might disagree with that case law is equally irrelevant.

 

[Avatar4321]

Griswold indicated it is a right under the penumbral right of PRIVACY. BASIC human right, NO. One can accomplish the same goal by abstaining from sexual activity.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

Although relatively unknown, a 1965 Supreme Court decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, has had a profound impact on American laws and society. The majority opinion in the Griswold decision provided the legal rationale and philosophical foundation for the Court’s subsequent decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized abortion in all fifty states, invalidated various state laws, and generated an intense nationwide debate which continues today.

Griswold v. Connecticut involved a statute adopted by the state of Connecticut in 1879 which made it illegal for any person to use, or assist in using, any "drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception", even among married couples. The statute was first challenged in 1943 in Tileston v. Ullman where the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff "lacked standing." The statute was later challenged in 1961, in Poe v. Ullman. The Court decided in that case that the controversy was not "ripe" because the plaintiff had not actually been prosecuted for breaking the statute. Then in 1965, suit was initiated by two members of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Their Executive Director, Estelle Griswold, had been convicted of providing contraceptive information, instruction, and medical advice to a married couple. Her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court where the Connecticut law and Mrs. Griswold's conviction were ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 7-2, and Connecticut’s law was found to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court justice who wrote the majority opinion in Griswold argued that they had found a new “right of privacy" in the Constitution which could be used to strike down the Connecticut law. Although this so called "right of privacy" could not be found anywhere in the actual text of the Constitution or its amendments, the majority argued that it is "implied" by the words and phrases of other constitutional amendments.

What makes Griswold such a landmark case is the Court's willingness to explicitly justify at length the practice of investing certain un-enumerated rights with full constitutional status. The Court then uses these newly found rights to more or less legislate to the states in later cases such as Roe v. Wade, a job which is specifically reserved by our Constitution to the elected representatives of the people through the U.S. Congress and state legislatures!

Justice Hugo Black was one of only two justices who voted against the majority in Griswold and wrote a passionate dissenting opinion in the case. Although Justice Black believed that the Connecticut law was "offensive" he felt that it was nonetheless constitutional. He strongly believed that any decision to change or abandon the Connecticut law should be made by the Connecticut state legislature. In his Griswold dissent, Justice Black argued that the decision is "dangerous" and may eventually threaten the "tranquillity and stability of the nation." How right he was!

Justice Black argued that a specific right of "privacy", on which the decision was based, cannot be found anywhere in the constitution. Justice Black believed that the decision was a revival of the old and outdated Lochner-era Court philosophy with which the Court strictly controlled the economic activity of the States.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Ive read the decision, multiple times. It's extremely weak in reasoning. The two dissents by Justice Black and Justice Stewart are much more convincing than the concurring opinions (they couldn't even get a majority support).

Dissenting Opinion by J. Stewart: 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. [p528] 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. [n1] It has [p529] not even been argued that this is a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [n2] 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. [n3]

No soldier has been quartered in any house. [n4] There has been no search, and no seizure. [n5] Nobody has been compelled to be a witness against himself. [n6]

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 [p530] 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. [n7]

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 [p531] 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

 

[ScreamingEagle]

states have the right to just about anything that is not in the Constitution....

That's not in the Constitution.

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment compels the states to abide the Bill of Rights where incorporated; states must also abide each citizen’s due process rights, and allow citizens equal access to all laws, among other things.

The right to marry, the right to vote, the right to self-defense, the individual right to own firearms, the right to move about the country freely, and the right to privacy are all part of the Constitution, that the actual words aren’t in the text of the Constitution is irrelevant.

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

And that one might disagree with that case law is equally irrelevant.

Lefties disagree with the Constitution itself all the time.....much less case law......

what the hell makes you think activist case law can't be questioned and even overturned....?

 

[The T]

states have the right to just about anything that is not in the Constitution....

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment compels the states to abide the Bill of Rights where incorporated; states must also abide each citizen’s due process rights, and allow citizens equal access to all laws, among other things.

The right to marry, the right to vote, the right to self-defense, the individual right to own firearms, the right to move about the country freely, and the right to privacy are all part of the Constitution, that the actual words aren’t in the text of the Constitution is irrelevant.

The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law.

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

And that one might disagree with that case law is equally irrelevant.

Lefties disagree with the Constitution itself all the time.....much less case law......

what the hell makes you think case law can't be questioned and even overturned....?

As a matter of course caselaw can be overturned. We only need legislators with a spine to do it rather than crafting more of it.

 

[Avatar4321]

what the hell makes you think case law can't be questioned and even overturned....?

It can and is.

 

[oreo]

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

BUT--the LOWER State Supreme court slapped in down--more than likely KNOWING it would not meet the muster of the U.S. Constitution-and the bills of rights. NO LOWER COURT LIKES to get embarrassed by the US Supremes.

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

 

[geauxtohell]

BUT--the LOWER State Supreme court slapped in down--more than likely KNOWING it would not meet the muster of the U.S. Constitution-and the bills of rights. NO LOWER COURT LIKES to get embarrassed by the US Supremes.

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

Why won't you just fall in line like a good little conservative?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

well step right up and git yerself an abortion cuz the activist SCOTUS said so....

Americans still have the right to disagree with something they don't believe is in the Constitution ......and they can change it too.....activist law like Griswold and Roe v Wade will get kicked out someday....

 

[geauxtohell]

well step right up and git yerself an abortion cuz the activist SCOTUS said so....

Americans still have the right to disagree with something they don't believe is in the Constitution ......and they can change it too.....activist law like Griswold and Roe v Wade will get kicked out someday....

Don't count on it. The GOP has no interest in seeing it be overturned.

 

[oreo]

The Griswold decision is a horrendous decision. The Penumbra of privacy that isnt at all mentioned in the Constitution.

Griswold v. Connecticut

Ive read the decision, multiple times. It's extremely weak in reasoning. The two dissents by Justice Black and Justice Stewart are much more convincing than the concurring opinions (they couldn't even get a majority support).

Dissenting Opinion by J. Stewart: 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. [p528] 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. [n1] It has [p529] not even been argued that this is a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [n2] 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. [n3]

No soldier has been quartered in any house. [n4] There has been no search, and no seizure. [n5] Nobody has been compelled to be a witness against himself. [n6]

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 [p530] 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. [n7]

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 [p531] 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

It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are about a U.S. Supreme Court decision--because they are the ULTIMATE law of the land. And in a 7 to 2 decision tells me that they saw something very wrong in the Connecticut decision--that THEY believed to be unconstitutional.

 

[The T]

BUT--the LOWER State Supreme court slapped in down--more than likely KNOWING it would not meet the muster of the U.S. Constitution-and the bills of rights. NO LOWER COURT LIKES to get embarrassed by the US Supremes.

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

So Santorum belives it's wrong..so what? I happen to AGREE with him.

YOU act like he is going subvert the Constitution like Obama, and The Courts...

WHY?

WHY the hard on for Santorum? Because he speaks frankly about social issues that filter down to the rest of issues?

Because without a strong moral compass WE as a people cannot survive in this Republic?

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

 

[geauxtohell]

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

I love it when Tank Engine assumes a scolding father-like tone.

I still don't think he's figured out that this board is populated by adults who think he is full of shit.

 

[Avatar4321]

It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are about a U.S. Supreme Court decision--because they are the ULTIMATE law of the land. And in a 7 to 2 decision tells me that they saw something very wrong in the Connecticut decision--that THEY believed to be unconstitutional.

First, they are not the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land.

Saying it's a 7 to 2 decision is a bit deceptive because it was a plurality and not a majority.

 

[oreo]

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

So Santorum belives it's wrong..so what? I happen to AGREE with him.

YOU act like he is going subvert the Constitution like Obama, and The Courts...

WHY?

WHY the hard on for Santorum? Because he speaks frankly about social issues that filter down to the rest of issues?

Because without a strong moral compass WE as a people cannot survive in this Republic?

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

Then I suppose that if he is the nominee--that you don't believe his stance on this--bascially going against a US Supreme court decision on a 7 to 2 vote won't affect the outcome of the general election--with him out there stating that States have the right to ban birth control contraceptives.

What do you think the Obama reelection campaign committee is going to do with this information--BURY IT----

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why not? The 9th Circus does it all the time...

No I was incorrect--this case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court and was slapped down. So whoever voted YES that Santorum was right when he stated that states have the right to BAN birth control contraception is WRONG.

Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.

So Santorum belives it's wrong..so what? I happen to AGREE with him.

YOU act like he is going subvert the Constitution like Obama, and The Courts...

WHY?

WHY the hard on for Santorum? Because he speaks frankly about social issues that filter down to the rest of issues?

Because without a strong moral compass WE as a people cannot survive in this Republic?

SON?

YOU have alot of soul searching to do.

He is correct. Once the compass is lost? WE become what the Statists as Obama want us to be...like everyone else in the world.

WE are better than that...and YOU know it.

Why?

I think its pretty obvious that he can't get over Newts demise.

Bitter to the end, just like Newt I might add.

Clear thinking people realize this isn't an issue.

 

[Cuyo]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

I think a producer's right to produce it and the consumer's right to purchase it are pretty basic rights, yes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It doesn't matter what our personal opinions are about a U.S. Supreme Court decision--because they are the ULTIMATE law of the land. And in a 7 to 2 decision tells me that they saw something very wrong in the Connecticut decision--that THEY believed to be unconstitutional.

First, they are not the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land.

Saying it's a 7 to 2 decision is a bit deceptive because it was a plurality and not a majority.

The courts decision to Reverse was based on 7 votes with only to voting to Affirm. Three separate concurrences were written with 3 of the Justices that voted to Reverse participating in both the major opinion and the concurring opinions.

The decision to Reverse was not made on a plurality.


>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

States have tons of rights, or at least they are supposed to.

If a state, county, city can ban the sale of booze, drugs, etc, they can ban contraceptives.

if a state can severely restrict the use of arms, and free speech, they can restrict access to contraceptives and abortion.

If people don't like it, they need to stop doing all of it.

Choose freedom for all and everything

or

tyranny



I'll take the shitty results of freedom over the wonderful results of tyranny every time.

but that, apparently, is just me.