ladyliberal
Progressive Princess
- Aug 5, 2011
- 1,253
- 291
- 48
It's just starting now. Anyone else watching?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and Perry hasn't gotten any questions yet.
Likely because Paul has no idea what hes talking about.If I understand Paul's take on the contraception issue, it seems quite bizarre. He said the fact that contraceptives were sold state-to-state and thus subject to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce meant that states couldn't ban contraceptives. This seems both very odd and contrary to what I thought Paul's philosophy was.
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Griswold v. Connecticut
Romney: I can't imagine a state banning contraception.
That shows a real lack of imagination on his part, especially if we include the "morning-after pill" in the category of contraception.
Romney also seems to be surprisingly ignorant of the relevant history. He didn't seem to know that the Supreme Court had struck down state contraception bans, but then he seemed to begin to recall it as he steered the discussion to striking down Roe v. Wade.
Likely because Paul has no idea what hes talking about.If I understand Paul's take on the contraception issue, it seems quite bizarre. He said the fact that contraceptives were sold state-to-state and thus subject to Congress's ability to regulate interstate commerce meant that states couldn't ban contraceptives. This seems both very odd and contrary to what I thought Paul's philosophy was.
It has noting to do with interstate commerce, it has to do with the right to privacy and substantive due process:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. See Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 516-522 (dissenting opinion). Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Griswold v. Connecticut
Even if Roe was overturned most states would allow abortion.
Nothing much would change.