Ron Paul's living Constitution...
On tonight's debate Ron Paul saluted the emanations from a penumbra on which Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade hang. Congressman Paul says the right to privacy is constitutional. Wow! Some constitutionalist. Why didn't I know this?
A man claims to be a constitutionalist, and yet he believes this right is Constitutional. Think about it, though: libertarianism has to trump constitutionalism.
But to come back to the real world of words and sentences and meaning...
There is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. Read the Constitution and try to find it. The absence of this right is one of many reasons Roe v. Wade is such awful jurisprudence.The late Joe Sobran exposes this right for what it isn't:
[Supreme Court Justice William O.] Douglas and his colleagues have suggested that the “right of privacy” is a sort of underlying principle of rights that are specified, as if the concept had been struggling to be born in the minds of the Framers but had to await their more articulate successors in order to be delivered.
But the Framers weren’t exactly men who had to grope for words and ideas. They were fully acquainted with the concept of privacy and as a value it is certainly felt in the Constitution. As a value — not as a right.
Like freedom and justice, privacy can be a governing principle. But it is almost nonsense to speak of it as a “right,” at least in a legal sense. “The right to freedom shall not be infringed;” how could such a provision possibly be applied in the real world? …The right to own property is more concrete than the right of privacy, which is particularly hard to define. But the Framers …avoided anything as general as a provision that “the rights of property shall not be infringed.” Instead, they [used specific prohibitions].
It would not be an improvement . . . to say “Aha! What they were trying to express was property rights! Let’s have no limits on property rights. Property rights is what it all means! We know a penumbra when we see one!” But this is more or less how the court derived “the right of privacy” from scattered passages . . . It deduced a general right — arbitrarily … then deduced another specific … from the generality.
- Joe Sobran, "Owning and Belonging," Human Life Review, Winter 1989.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Sandy Pryor on Why move to Bloomington?
- why men pull away catch him and keep him on Athanasius College: an alternative to old schools' hyperinflated tuition...
- Roger Keane on Why is there no ADHD in France...
- Denver Todd on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Denver Todd on Why move to Bloomington?
Comments
You have the right to be secure in your person, papers etc. against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's not an absolute right to privacy by any means.
In fact, the Constitution is very clear that warrants must be based on probable cause, and that they must be specific regarding the place to be searched, "and the persons or things to be seized."
Amending above
Constitution is very clear that ****the right to search is assumed, with the restriction that**** warrants must be... etc. etc.
WOW!! Did he really say that?
Do the followers of "the only protector of the Constitution" know that he supports (apparently) the greatest single destructive interpretation of the Constitution in all of judicial history?
Wow, Fred, you must be a lawyer or something!?
The question Ron Paul was asking was specifically about CONTRACEPTION NOT ABORTION....everyone else was making it about abortion as this article is as well.
Ken,
This penumbra is a nightmare. It is responsible for all kinds of evil.
asked
The right to privacy was founded in a contraception case (Griswold), which in turn led to Roe. Both Griswold and Roe are bad law, made by Justices who thought they were better legislators than actual legislators.
Without Griswold, you don't get Roe.
It seems to me that Dr. Paul has preyed on the despondency of the American people toward a government that is completely out of control. He offers an extremely sympathetic campaign for those who are "fed up with the fed," and they automatically become starry-eyed because he sounds so different from the so-called "status quo." But if you look at the nuance in his proclamations, it's not that difficult to find the holes in the things that he says. It's just that we have a society that is so desperate for something other than what is currently, and they are behaving as such with regard to Ron Paul.
>>everyone else was making it about abortion as this article is as well.
I'm not making it about abortion. It's libertarianism trumping the Constitution and making common cause with insincere emanations from a penumbra that has me hacking and sneezing. Roe v. Wade just shows us where this hypocrisy ends up and how grisly that end is.
Hearing his statement during the debate, I found this that proves I hadn't been drinking moonshine:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/01/04/Paul-says-Santorum-confused-ov...
Love,
Santorum funded Planned Parenthood vita Title X family planning. Shouldn't a strict conservative eschew that?
The Constitution isn't perfect. Just like the WCF isn't perfect. That's why they can be amended. But oaths of office are taken by senators and congressmen (and presidents) as well as the military to uphold it.
Santorum is using his social conservative "picture" to cover for his big government policies. I like neither. That's why I support Ron Paul.
Fred: Agreed.
Eliza: Everything I can find on Santorum and Title X says he's against it and would repeal it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Ken: Will check tomorrow.
As for Joe Sobran, since he was such a great thinker and writer, I think he understood Ron Paul differently than many of the posters here. Otherwise, why would he support Ron Paul so completely? And he did.
I'm guessing Ron Paul has recently changed his position on the penumbra. I can't find anything earlier than the last year or two where he signs on to this lovely creation of SCOTUS. If you can, let us know.
Regardless, as Sobran aged he became a hard-lined libertarian-bordering-on-anarchist. It was one of several things that I disagreed with, but he remained my hero.
Love,
The problem with Ron Paul is that he hasn't thought through most of his positions. He has no historical understanding of how this country was founded or the basis for much our rights and values, much less the distinction between the two (as Sobran points out above). He supports the so-called right to privacy because it sounds libertarian, without really examining the implications of such a "right."
> Santorum funded Planned
> Parenthood vita Title X
> family planning
Really? When did he do that?
Or are you referring to a vote for an omnibus federal budget?
Because if that's the case, it's simply not a fair characterization.
This whole election- primary and general- reminds me of a South Park episode from 2004, right before Bush v. Kerry (watched that show a lot in my less mature days). Crass as it was, it made a great point. The kids have to vote on a new school mascot, and the only options are two things that I will not describe here on this blog- suffice it to say they're crass and awful. One of the kids says, "you know what, I just don't think I'm going to vote, because I don't want a horrible tacky mascot A or a horrible tacky mascot B." His parents are filled with shame and rage that he won't do his civic duty and he's exiled from town. Every election I think back to this episode, and this year I've reached that point. All of these guys are turkeys, IMO, and I'm not voting for a turkey. So I'm going to stay home and have a coke.
#16 response.
Ron Paul voted in favor of the Pence Amendment--H.R 217, amendment of the Public Health Service Act), which is a bill designed to ban all federal funding for Planned Parenthood and eliminating Title X. Feb. 18 2011
Rick Santorum voted for funding Planned Parenthood via Title X in the budget. If he wants it de-funded, he shouldn't vote for it in any form or format.
Now how did I "characterize" it? I stated a simple fact. Does it matter if I take the poison in my breakfast cereal or by itself? The former might be more palatable, but the effect is the same.
Amen, Eliza, amen. You're telling 'em the truth they need to consider. Santorum is pitifully weak on not only the sanctity of life, but on just about everything else that should be important to Christian voters. He's pro big government. He has close ties to corporate lobbyists. In 2006, he was defeated in a landslide (17.4% margin) in his bid for reelection to the senate by Bob Casey, Jr., who was able to make a more convincing argument than Santorum of his pro-life credentials, which doesn't say much for Santorum's bona fides as a pro-lifer.
One thing to consider is that if Santorum is weak on issues like abortion and sodomy while Ron Paul is a giant how come the sodomites and the chld murderers froth at the mouth at Santorum and savage he and his family in an obscene fashion while paying little or no attention to Dr. Paul? Because Paul is not a threat to sodomy or abortion and Santorum is.
The 17.6% loss against Casey is massively overplayed by those that dislike Santorum. 2006 was a bloodbath year for the GOP and most of that 17.6% can be attributed to it and the fact Bob Casey, Jr. was supported by many that loved his father. They seem to forget Santorum won 4 times before that in a heavy Democratic House district and in a heavy Democratic state, twice beating well-liked incumbents.
To say Santorum is soft on Sodomy and Abortion is beyond laughable. Santorum is the only candidate that will not allow abortions in the case of rape or incest. He lives his Pro-Life convictions both in his own life and in his opposition to abortifacients and birth control. He is also the only candidate that has spoken openly against gay adoption.
What's laughable is how easy it is for candidate Santorum to snooker US evangelical voters into supporting him. Just throw out a couple of cheap lines and he's got 'em hooked. Do you really believe that Santorum "would not allow abortions in the case of rape or incest?" Just how would he go about doing that? We wouldn't be electing him king over a theocracy. Shouldn't there be some indication from his record as a representative and then a senator of how he would accomplish that? There has to be legislation. What legislation did he introduce while in either the House or Senate? Paul can point to the Sanctity of Life Act. What can Santorum point to? His having voted for Title X funding of abortion (via Planned Parenthood)? His endorsing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey?
Please stop being so easily manipulated and bamboozled by a career politician/lobbyist who will say just what you were hoping he'd say but can't back it up with anything substantive in the way of proposed legislation that would have any chance of every being enacted. Returning jurisdiction of abortion regulation to the states is doable. Pretending that we live in a theocracy and that we're electing a king to make everything right is naive.
Wilberforce didn't end England's slave trade overnight. And his success wasn't all attributable to direct attacks on slave trade. He also attacked obliquely and wisely so. Paul knows what he's doing. Santorum is in over his head.
One thing Tim Bayly failed to do in posting this is give us a better understanding of what Paul actually said. Notwithstanding Stephanopoulos' efforts to doggedly keep pursuing contraception, Paul sensed the audience's growing frustration and intentionally changed the subject to the Patriot Act, which has very much to do with privacy protections provided in the Fourth Amendment. This whole post has the appearance of being too quick to opportunistically bash Ron Paul and in a misleading manner. Not good.
Here's the pertinent text from Griswold that overturned Comstock laws and became the legal basis for Roe v. Wade:
*****************************
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. ...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."
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
*****************************
In the debate, the question under discussion for three and a half minutes was the legitimacy of Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
After the commercial break, here's how this section began. George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Back in Manchester. Governor Romney, I want to go straight to you. Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that..."
Stephanopoulos again asked Mitt Romney:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"
Stephanopoulos again asked Mitt Romney:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "... asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?"
Stephanopoulos again asked Mitt Romney:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution."
And Governor Romney responds:
ROMNEY: "I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution."
Then this exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?"
ROMNEY: "Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn... Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do."
Governor Romney tried to sidestep the birth control part of the question, with some success, and at one point deferred to Ron Paul as the resident scholar of the Constitution. When the fracas between Stephanopoulos and Romney came to an end, with a nice touch of humor, Ron Paul asked if he could add something since his name had been mentioned. He was granted the privilege and his first words were:
*******************
No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.
This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it’s not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
*****************
There had been no discussion of the Patriot Act in this part of the discussion. The only reason it came up was that, after making it clear that he believed in the right to privacy, Paul wanted to move the discussion to the ever-more-important subject of libertarianism where the masses were most likely to be sympathetic to him; but also to an area where his supporters who are pro-life wouldn't be as alienated. So having hopped on the bandwagon of the right to privacy, Paul moved on over to a new and betteer subject--the Patriot Act--and declared himself to be fully opposed to the jack-booted federalists coming into our homes. Argumentum ad populum.
Then he solidified his position by bringing in the Commerce Clause.
Trouble is, the question was hammered home again and again for three minutes prior, and it had nothing to do with the Patriot Act.It was birth control AND abortion. Griswold and Roe v. Wade. The context for his declaration of a right to privacy was birth control/Griswold v. Connecticut and abortion/Roe v. Wade.
Anyhow, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEgIr6nz0NU
And you'll find the full transcript of this part of the debate below. I don't think I misunderstood Paul when I heard him confirm the right to privacy underlying both these awful SCOTUS decisions, but judge for yourselves. Regardless of whether you think there's another way of understanding Paul, I wish our good brother had not accused me of intentionally misconstruing Paul's argument.
Love,
Tim Bayly
*************************
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in Manchester. Governor Romney, I want to go straight to you.
Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that...
SANTORUM: No, I said -- let’s be clear.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. I’m giving you your due...
SANTORUM: I’m talking about -- we’re talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to get to that core question.
SANTORUM: OK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: ... or a -- or a legislature of a state -- I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sure Congressman Paul...
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK, come on -- come on back...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?
ROMNEY: George, I -- I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no -- no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on...
ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court -- has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.
ROMNEY: The -- I believe in the -- that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court -- and occasionally I do -- then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s -- it’s known as the amendment process.
And -- and where we have -- for instance, right now we’re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of -- of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.
ROMNEY: I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.
And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But should that be done in this case?
ROMNEY: Pardon?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Should that be done in this case?
ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case -- this case to allow states to ban contraception? No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?
With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE) STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn...
(SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE YELLING)
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.
PAUL: He mentioned my name.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead then.
PAUL: I didn’t know whether I got time when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.
This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it’s not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
I must have been reading the transcript while Tim was writing the response above. As I read it, I actually thought the original post was quite gentle on Paul by focusing more on the meaning of the 4th Amendment than on his strategy in the debate. When I read what Paul actually said, I was more disgusted. Here he had a rare opportunity on national television to tear apart the despicable actions of the SCOTUS in Griswold and Roe. Instead, sensing the whole world's (not just the audience's) frustration with anything that might hint of infringing on their right to birth control, he torched the opportunity, took the safe route, and picked on a favorite whipping boy of Libertarians and Democrats alike, the Patriot Act.
And with respect to "oblique" methods, yeah, the oblique approach has done a lot these last 40 years hasn't it. It's easy to see oblique as wise when it's not you or your baby being killed.
Thank you, Tim Bayly, for posting the context. I withdraw my concern that you appeared to be misleading us by not telling us what Paul actually said. Please forgive me for expressing that.
Mr. Spaetti, what do you propose that we do now to reverse Roe v. Wade? And what has Rick Santorum done, other than say one thing and then do another, to reverse Roe v. Wade?
Dear Pastor Toms,
Freely I forgive you, dear brother. And if I've misinterpreted Congressman Paul, I ask all you supporters of Paul to forgive me.
As to your being suspicious of my motives, I don't blame you. It only hurt because I thought it was wrong in this case. But motives are a key part of such discussion and we need to be scrutinizing one another's motives, as well as the motives of the candidates.
Speaking of our own motives, I keep this in mind about all my brothers who believe in Congressman Paul: it's hard to hold a minority position with equanimity. I first loved this simple observation when I thought of my friend, Elisabeth (Howard/Elliot/Leach) Gren, and her loneliness standing against dispensational Zionists and battleax Evangelical feminists years ago. Like the Apostle Paul, she could be harsh and her bristling even with those who loved her at times caused us pain, but...
It's hard to hold a minority position with equanimity.
Love,
TB
I don't think any of us know what to do, other than to picket and sidewalk counsel and adopt and support care centers and...
Vote?
I'm a Republican. Joke.
It's Joe Sobran's adage: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times? I'm a Republican!"
Another Sobranism: "If voting did anything, they'd outlaw it."
Love,
TB
Mr. Toms,
I agree with Tim; I don't know what to do. But I don't think criticizing directness is the answer. If we find a leader who is willing to speak directly and advocates strong direct reaction, we should realize the risk he's taking among liberals and so-called conservatives alike. Now if he's a complete hypocrite who is just clamoring for votes, that should be exposed. Maybe that's Santorum; I don't follow politics closely enough to know yet. (I will try to find out, by the way.) But opposing abortion in the case of rape and incest is hardly a well-established way to increase one's position in the poles, even among a large percentage of churchgoers. Santorum's willingness to take that risk (in contrast to what I see as Paul dodging the issue of abortion in the most recent debates) at least has my attention.
Hi David & Tim,
I started to respond with a lengthy rebuttal, but then I deleted the whole response and decided to move on to other postings since I haven't been by the site in several days. As it turned out, I dropped down a couple of postings to the video comparing the response of Mr. Santorum to Dr. Paul. I read a couple of the replies and was quickly drawn back to post here after all! It is clear that many/most/all? of the readers on your site (I pray it is so) are against the murder of unborn babies. It also seems reasonable to conclude that most of your readers "want to do the right thing" in respose to this moral evil that continues in this country.
It does not strike me as helpful to have so many folks confuse the terms libertarian or anarchist with Constitutional government. It is altogether another matter to agree to lay aside the supreme law of the land to solve a problem that two parties can agree needs to be addressed.
I thought Gary North's thoughts on the matter late last week were helpful toward this end and have excerpted from his article for further consideration:
"The Constitution of the United States does not authorize the following:
1. Federal laws against pornography
2, Federal laws against alcohol
3. Federal laws against drugs
4. Federal laws against homosexuality
5. Federal laws against abortion
Social conservatives must decide: federal laws prohibiting any of the Big Five vs. Constitutional law.
The Constitution of the United States also does not authorize the following:
1. Federal laws legalizing local pornography
2, Federal laws legalizing local alcohol
3. Federal laws legalizing local drugs
4. Federal laws legalizing local homosexuality
5. Federal laws legalizing local abortion
Social liberals must decide: federal laws legalizing any of the Big Five locally vs. Constitutional law.
The two groups are generally agreed: Violate Constitutional law. This is the problem for American liberty. American politics is a contest over which group gets to decide which Constitutional restraints to ignore.
This is not how the two groups come to their donors. Each group pledges to extend justice. Each group blames the other for undermining the Constitution. Both groups are correct.
The social conservative says he favors local initiative. Then he votes for Washington politicians who interfere with local practices.
The social liberal says he favors national justice. Then he votes for Washington politicians who interfere with local practices.
The social conservative is inconsistent. The social liberal is consistent...."
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1083.html
Here's a response to the above comment:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2012/01/it-does-not-strike-me-as-helpful-to-hav...
Tim,
I agree that, to do nothing, in light of the wholesale slaughter of babies that's occurring, is cowardice and heartless.
Following is the text of Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life bill. Again, not perfect, but it does some very important things:
1) Defines life as beginning at conception
2) Affirms that states have the authority to protect unborn children
3) Restricts the jurisdiction of federal courts including the use of existing decisions (e.g., Roe v. Wade) as precedent
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of--
(1) any State or subdivision thereof;
(2) the District of Columbia; or
(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance, is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.
I will take the zealous preacher of liberty, who dodges questions but actually works to implement protections for the unborn, for marriage and the married against nullifiers, usurpers, and trespassers in the marriage economy (i.e. all his rhetoric about forcing government to respect private contracts), and the right of good men to work without being punished for violating idea, method, and maths patents (which the constitution itself does not allow, not for being explicitly against, but due to "emanations" and consequences of its tenor and meaning), over the double talker who does none of this except when superficially possible without effect, any day. Paul is a guy whose staffers will willing violate unconstitutional laws to get arrested so they can have standing to challenge them in court: even knowing they will probably lose because of the court, even with many conservatives, "giving deference" to a lawless band we call congress.
The penumbra to a right to privacy should not be held in contempt just because it was tenuously used to support legalized murder. The argument is congent in this regard: our government is one designed that private men should be left alone. Period. It is a leap to say therefore, however, this means that taking of human life, that is, innocent human life, is protected. The association between the two gives one a bad name, but it's the misuse, not the thing itself. Our nation is both a constituted one and one of common law, with states older than the nation themselves such that they have older laws established by both court and statute. In the common law, the household really was a man's castle. It was partly in defense of ancient rights the king wanted to abolish that the revolution was initiated: the Bill of Rights, for example, does not exist to establish rights, but preserve rights that were at the time, among the British and its government, and others of like mind here in America, under assault.
The states, btw, are given power of criminal matters, and life and death, not the federal government! That is specifically stated in the Constitution for good reason. It is not just a philosohpic and idealistic document, but one that embodies, in the Burkean sense despite enlightenment philosophy being there as well, well worn prejudices these men regarded. They sought a "more perfect union", not a perfect one, nor even a completely just one, but one that would hinder human nature, drive to accumulate all power, and so forth, with all the goods and evils it brings: one can read their own words to see how pessimistic they were about the project even lasting that long, or of those who thought therefore that ideals would always be upheld, that things would often, short-term, be just: it just isn't the world we live in, and many of those men understood men for what they are. That is the sort of thing for which Roe v. Wade is a shock, in legal terms: overriding the laws of most states at the federal judiciary level despite that they do, indeed, legally and traditionally, have the power and privilege to 1. protect life 2. prosecute its taking 3. regulate physicians 4. etc.?
But the penumbras, zones of privacy, etc., are all logical consequences of the constitutional text itself. That itself should not be questioned: the constitution, men forget, does not lay out all the rights men have, but enumerates only some. It says, in fact, that rights not mentioned are reserve to the states or the people. I think it should be remembered that even in the founders' time, there were worldly men, of which they were some (I mean in the realistic sense)! And contraception existed even then. In a legal sense yes, such things are rights. What is not, as we do not permit the taking of life without just cause without intervention, oversight, review, etc. of the courts (i.e. to prevent it) in any other case, is fetal termination. That really is a simple matter of law, if the lines are clearly drawn. But so is the right not to be constantly surveilled, which requires a warrant: the state is rapidly working to undo this now as well.
Our legal situation is difficult precisely because liberal (in the old sense, now usually meaning libertarian, but not in the Ayn Rand sense) principles are embodied therein and conservative principles are used to protect them. That is to say, both limitations on government due to mistrust of human nature, and as they put it, our society would have to be moral to maintain a limited government; also, men would have to surrender their partisanship and loyalties to an abstract and transcendent respect or compact to respect the rights of fellow men as long as such did not seek their harm. A tough thing to maintain, keep, or even bring about in the first place.
Paul is right on legal footing about the fourth amendment. He is also cunning in this regard: right to privacy you may have, but we can regulate doctors against murdering infants: I put it this way because we actually cannot on legal footing forbid all abortions: if the life of a mother is truly at stake, it is cowardice not to intervene--I do not mean that in the sense of liberals who want a headache to qualify as mental illness for which a mother might take her life; in fact, I would love a few politicians who stated openly that if a pregnant woman becomes suicidal, we can gag her (to prevent tongue biting) and lock her in an asylum, straight-jacketed and, if necessary, tied to a table until she gives birth. "Dignity" talk be cast into hell, and to correct such mythical blabber by pointing out that a woman has dignity only if she respects and lives according to her nature, which is God-given. : )
We can also subpoena evidence or persons for evidence or testimony in case of probable cause, e.g. someone tips off authorities that a woman has murdered a fetus, or a doctor sees such a person and realizes what has happened (for infection or whatever). I don't trust that many doctors today would report it, given that they put individual license over morals so frequently (and call it ethical because the former is valued more), but the only way to truly prevent all this would be to constantly surveil everyone and intrude upon everything more zealously than the S.S.
From a legal standpoint, Paul is not legally in the wrong here; from a careful reading of the Constitution, neither Griswald nor Roe are altogether wrong either: their conclusions do not fit exactly with the premises they give, and that's the point that should be heralded, not that we do not have privacy or right against search and seizure just because these things may not have been traditionally upheld very well, respect, though of with depth, etc. You can note that it is on the basis of them that marriage is argued to be something a government can't just intervene in and anull, dissolve, forbid, etc. without consent of the parties to the contract! So let's point out to the "liberals" that the basis of their murder free-for-all does not support their position, but it does ours, yet they refuse to respect our rights, so we will no longer tolerate their despotism, and will not only seek their removal, but prosecution. Let's also acknowledge that many of the designs in our government for protection of men from intrusion, from accumulation of power centrally, from caprice and arbitrary rulers, so long as there are sufficient numbers in office to set themselves against those who would step beyond the limits of their offices, also mean that many evils will inevitably, even if all our laws were very moral, and comprehensive to defend what is right, go unprosecuted, unfound, or even become unprosecutable for violation of some teensie step of legally due process. Right to privacy exists, just not as a cloak for evils or immorality: which is why we have due process requirements to unveil them, to render them punishable as crimes. It also must not be forgotten that our national founders intended there be general, correct, public morality--from Christian religion itself in most cases, that laws should be made to exemplify it, and that it should be held near and dear to the hearts of a truly free people. It is not wise to argue with privacy, but with the proposition that privacy protects licentiousness is something to be asseverated by the high officials of the land, and in the hearts of the people. Good luck though, the mass of "Christians" love it so as well.
Add new comment