Okay, the supreme court is derided by conservatives for Roe v Wade,
which was based on a right of privacy not enumerated in the
constitution. At least that's the way conservatives interpret it.
This has always bothered me, though. The more I learn about the way the
constitution was constructed, the more I'm inclined to support this
right to privacy not enumerated in the constitution.
Currently, my thinking goes like this: There were two camps of framers.
There were those who believed it was necessary to enumerate a bill of
rights, because failure to do so would enable the government at some
point to co-opt the rights of the people. The other camp believe that it
was treacherous ground to enumerate the rights of the people in the
constitution, since inevitably, any right not so enumerated would
inevitably be claimed by the government.
In both cases, though, the rights in question were generally
"inalienable" rights, presumably bestowed by God (as in the Declaration
of Independence). Such rights included the freedom of speech, the
freedom of religion and the right to self defense (the second
amendment).
So it occurs to me that the framers could not/would not have enumerated
all the rights they considered "inalienable". If so, what other rights
might be inalienable which were never mentioned? The right to marry whom
you wish? The right to plant whatever crops you desired? If that's true,
then it seems to me that the right to privacy is another right which we
might/should consider inalienable. It seems closely tied with property
rights.
I'm only attacking this one point of the court's ruling. This does not
speak to whether abortion is murder. If abortion is considered murder,
then no amount of privacy rights would protect a person from the wrath
of the government. Conversely, if abortion is not considered murder,
then it truly would be considered under privacy rights. I have my own
opinions on this matter.
I'm also not arguing whether the court overextended its reach in
effectively creating law from the bench. I believe it did. A group of
less than ten people "resolved" a deeply contentious issue for the whole
population without any public comment or consultation. Part of the
problem here was that politicians had inadequate backbone to simply pass
laws on this matter and suffer any possible consequences. This is
properly a matter for legislators, not judges.
No, my point is simply that this single issue of privacy rights perhaps
was a point in the court's favor.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:12:31 EDT