Can't wait to hear the screams about the ACLU on this one...

[Boris Godunov]

Being inalienable means they are inherent to being a person. Ergo no document, whether its the Constitution or otherwise, gives us said rights. The framers enumerated specific rights in the Constitution because those weren't so obvious, but rights are not limited solely to those.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have to go to bed, so I'll just say this.

If it's an inherent right, then whomever makes people made these rights. It cannot be society because then society could take these rights away. It cannot be government, for government could do the same.

Also, if there are inherent rights associated with personhood, then it also means society does not get to decide who ought to be a person, for this would be the equivalent of stripping away unalienable rights.

[Berzerker]

Nowhere...they're inalienable. There are countless rights we possess that aren't enumerated in the Constitution--the right to eat, for instance. Its enumeration of some specific rights does not mean they aren't the only ones we possess.

Exactly! This is partly why Madison added the 9th Amendment, there are just too many rights to list so the Framers focused on those rights considered the most important and most likely to come under attack by tyrants. Guns, God, and speech...these were considered the most important and the rights tyrants would target first...

But when you hear someone say we don't have a right if it isn't written in the Bill of Rights, you're listening to someone who, for whatever reason, ignores not only the 9th Amendment, but the purpose of the Constitution - to limit government by granting it specific powers. It shouldn't matter if we have a right to privacy, only what enumerated powers government has to infringe upon our privacy.

While I'm no fan of Alexander Hamilton, he did raise a valid objection to adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He pointed out a BoR was not needed because the Constitution as it was written WAS a Bill of Rights - by limiting government to a handful of activities. And he added a warning and a prediction that has come true - he said if you add a BoR then there will be people who use that short list of rights to deny other rights we have using the very "logic" Bork and Limbaugh have used, i.e., if a right doesn't appear in the BoR, then it doesn't exist. How do these braintrusts respond to someone asking if that means we have no right to sleep, eat, or work when we want? These rights aren't in the Constitution either... Nor is there a government power to dictate when we sleep, eat, or work...

[Berzerker]

Good point Ben, I thought Boris was one of these leftists who deny the existence of natural - inalienable - rights.

Btw, our humble correspondent who is looking out for us, Bill O'Reilly, took credit tonight for the ACLU supporting Limbaugh. Bill said the reason the ACLU is doing this is because he has been hammering the ACLU on other issues so they are trying to get brownie points with the right. Where was O'Reilly when the ACLU stood up for the Neo-Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie Illinois ~2 decades ago? O'Reilly is like "a rooster taking credit for the rising sun".

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

You're going to need more evidence. All we have right now is that Bork and Limbaugh stating that there is no explicit right to privacy enumerated within the constitution.

[Berzerker]

Evidence for what? That they believe we don't have rights unless they are enumerated? Isn't that what their argument requires? They don't offer that tidbit in support of unenumerated rights, but to deny the existence of unenumerated rights. Hell, Bork denies we have a right to keep and bear arms and that right is enumerated... Maybe you don't pay attention to these guys, but I do, and they have consistently argued against unenumerated rights based on the argument that if a right isn't enumerated, it doesn't exist. This thread is your evidence, read what they've said about a right to privacy - it doesn't exist because it isn't in the BoR.

[Capt Dizle]

This issue is whether or not the right to privacy is a contitutionally protected right, not whether or not it is a right. Right?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Abortion involves at least 2 people...the victim and the
aborter(s). Therefore it is no longer a matter of privacy...

Your libertarian credentials are hereby revoked. A pro-life libertarian is like kosher pork.

BTW, the right to "privacy" involved with reproductive rights is a right against the public infringing on your womb (if you have one) and gonads. The word 'private' here is intended in its broader sense than just keeping a secret.

[Berzerker]

If it's a right, then it's constitutionally protected ala the 9th Amendment. Of course, the courts only pay attention to the 9th Amendment when there's enough political support. That's why we get such perversions of logic that have led to a right to kill unborn babies because that's "private" but no right to use marijuana because that isn't private. The question of what constitutes a right is simple enough to answer, does the activity in question qualify as an act of freedom?

Freedom - the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action.

Once that's determined, we have to see if any of the enumerated powers granted government by the Constitution allows it to infringe upon said right. So, if I say my religion forbids me to pay taxes, I have a right to practice my religion, but government has the enumerated power to impose taxes upon me. Therefore government's power supercedes my religious freedom.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hell, Bork denies we have a right to keep and bear arms and that right is enumerated...

Maybe Bork is illiterate - more reason he deserved to get borked.

I saw the guy talk once, and I'm convinced he is insane.

[Ben Kenobi]

That they believe we don't have rights unless they are enumerated?

Yep. I'm hoping someone will be able to answer your question about illegal seach and seizure. I'm sure Bork has an interesting argument consistent with his earlier statement.

[Berzerker]

Your libertarian credentials are hereby revoked. A pro-life libertarian is like kosher pork.

Roughly %35 of libertarians are opposed to abortion. But you're making an assumption about what I believe... Btw, you didn't give me my credentials, therefore you cannot revoke what you did not give...

BTW, the right to "privacy" involved with reproductive rights is a right against the public infringing on your womb (if you have one) and gonads. The word 'private' here is intended in its broader sense than just keeping a secret.

Your womb ceased being "private" when you conceived a baby.
It is illogical to argue that killing a baby 5 minutes before it leaves the womb is a right but not killing it 5 minutes after it leaves the womb.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Yep. I'm hoping someone will be able to answer your question about illegal seach and seizure. I'm sure Bork has an interesting argument consistent with his earlier statement.

He'd probably argue we only have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, not a right to privacy (even though the former obviously implies the latter). He has argued the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist because that amendment was really about a state's "right" to have militias, so don't expect much logic from him.

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, I'll have to start reading your posts thoroughly again. I thought I was the only person arguing for the 9th and 10th amendments in the forums. Ben, you make Berzerker's point for him.

You're going to need more evidence. All we have right now is that Bork and Limbaugh stating that there is no explicit right to privacy enumerated within the constitution.

Once you start down that line of reasoning, you deny the individual rights portions of the 9th and 10th amendments. You can still push states rights, and I have argued that the new conservative judges are always trumping states rights over individual rights. It's why I voted against Bush Jr., I find Scalia and Thomas (his preferred Supreme Court justices) frightening.

Berzerker, there has always been a tension between the actual wording of the Bill of Rights and social pressures, often coming from the religious sector of our country. Victimless crimes (in the privacy of your home in certain cases, i.e. DUI should still be a crime) should be unconstitutional! They are attempts to impose morality, often a specific flavor of Chritian morality, on the populace as a whole. It's why I am opposed personally to abortion, but I support a woman's freedom to choose, even though I have been very badly harmed by that in the past. but I will still support it. One of the best social libetarian tracts I ever read was pro-abortion, pro-gun ownership.

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, there has always been a tension between the actual wording of the Bill of Rights and social pressures, often coming from the religious sector of our country.

True, even the framers were chastised for not mentioning God in the Constitution and it didn't take long for people to subvert the law of the land. The Constitution was barely 10 years old when John Adams and the federalists made it illegal to criticise them - the Alien & Sedition Act. Jefferson got elected and refused to enforce the A&S calling it unconstitutional... Of course he was right, but how on Earth could the Prez and Congress get away with passing such an abomination so shortly after ratifying the Constitution? Yes, there were and are many religious folk who can't stand the Constitution and combined with the liberal secularists of the past few decades, the Constitution has more in common with the Communist Manifesto than the Constitution written by the Framers.