Roberts and the American Taliban
Aug 24
The LA Times has an interesting, if disturbing, article on evangelical leaders’ attempts to create a class of politicians that are little more than non-thinking rubber stampers for whatever said leaders tell them to do. And they intend to tell their newly minted office holding drones to dictate to you your private life:
To which Lynn responds, with exasperation: “He says that because he knows in a majority Christian country, the Christian view is going to be expressed by more voters. They have no problem imposing their biblical worldview on every American.”
Evangelical conservatives acknowledge that’s their goal.
And they now have a systematic plan for achieving it.
So what does this have to do with Roberts? Roberts does not believe in a right to privacy. That means he does not believe in a limit to the government’s power to reach into your personal life and to shape it in any fashion it desires. Without a right to privacy, there is no protection from government interference in your life. Without a right to privacy, there is no where the government cannot reach. Without a right to privacy, the evangelical leaders and their trained-seal representatives are free to tell you who you can live your life with, how you have to raise your children, what you can do in your bedroom, etc, etc, etc.
And Roberts does not think the Constitution contains a right to privacy.
#1 by Fred at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
The majority population of this country when it was founded was Christian. This majority had the power to set up a nation without religious freedom. It did not. It chose to allow all faiths and non-faiths to have equal rights under the law. The comparison of Christians to the Taliban is intellectually dishonest. Why do leftist lie so much?
#2 by SayUncle at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
“Roberts does not believe in a right to privacy”
Are you sure? I’ve never read him opining on it, other than referring to the fact it’s not in the Constitution. In fact, even you said you didn’t know:
“That is why it is so important to find out where Roberts stands on the issue of the right to privacy. ”
http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2005/08/10/4411/
#3 by Kevin at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
“Are you sure?”
99.5%. Since they wont release more recent papers, it stands to reason that his jibes about the “so-called” right to privacy are still reflective of his thinking.
And what good is a right if it does not exist in the COnsititution?
#4 by SayUncle at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
Then show me that right in the constitution.
‘And what good is a right if it does not exist in the COnsititution? ‘
Err, the unenumerated ones referenced in the ninth don’t exist in the constitution.
#5 by Kevin at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
“Err, the unenumerated ones referenced in the ninth don’t exist in the constitution.”
You need to explain that, becasue I think we are talking past each other. A right that is protected by the Constitution — even the unenumerated — are in the Constitution. How else could they be protected by the Constitution?
#6 by bill peppin at August 24th, 2005
| Quote
Guys, the purpose of the Constitution is not to specify the rights of citizens; it was taken as axiomatic that in a free country, people had all reasonable rights. Therefore, it is ignorance that causes people to say that a personal right not enumerated in the C is not a right to be claimed. The purpose of the C is to delimit, circumscribe the RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The Bill of Rights was not thought to be needed by some, but Jefferson insisted on putting it in, that those most fundamental of rights were granted explicitly (speech, religion, assembly). At noplace, NOPLACE! did any founding father, nor any scholar of the C at this time, state that only those rights explicitly given by the C were granted to citizens. Therefore, if Roberts does not see the right of personal privacy as a fundamental right of citizens, we should all have a BIG trouble with his nomination to the high court. In summary: the right of privacy is a basic, fundamental, and inalienable right of all citizens under the C.
#7 by BoBro at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Fred, you said - “The comparison of Christians to the Taliban is intellectually dishonest. Why do leftist lie so much?”
It’s not a lie, it’s called association. While there are obvious differences, there are also obvious similarities, and us lefties can see clearly that those similarities are evil. Allow me to spell it out for you. True Muslims would never think of ramming planes into skyscrapers just like true Christians would never advocate assassinations. On the other hand, narrow minded, arrogant, brain-washed Christian extremists and narrow minded, arrogant, brain-washed Muslim extremists will use any violent means to impose their particular beliefs on everyone else. Those particular beliefs offer a host of more similarities like oppression of women, but we know how short you attention span is, so I’ll conclude by saying the Taliban, Christian evangelicals, crusaders, Spanish Inquisition, god the list goes on for days. They are all evil using religion as a front for control and power.
#8 by Radical Dem at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
The right to privacy is only “mythical” since it has to do w/someone else’s “rights.” “Someone” specifically left of “your” particular politics. But if the crowbar were prying open your “privacy,” the privacy of rightwing, christian zealots, we would find you, too have a real problem with that “invasion.” “Fairness,” “justice,” and “equality” are, in these times, mere words to be played with. They have no meaning, as long as majority religious oppression is buying and selling itself into power.
#9 by MTB at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Excuse me,
the Constitution sets limits on the Government. It does not need to spell out every right the individual has. The right to privacy is accepted as a natural right, and is reflected as such throughout (as in the establishment cluase and the 4th amendment).
#10 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“A right that is protected by the Constitution — even the unenumerated — are in the Constitution.”
Err, no they are not. And I concur with Bill Peppin.
#11 by Fred at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
BoBro wrote: It’s not a lie, it’s called association.
Fred: My comment stands. It is intellectually dishonest to compare Christians to the Taliban. If you can’t see the difference between one TV personality calling for the assassination of someone with the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 there is no hope of a rational discussion with you.
#12 by Kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle
So the Constitution protects things that aren’t a part of it????? That doesn’t make any sense.
MTB
Then, by your reasoning, the Bill of Rights serves absolutely no purpose, correct? Under your formulation, any power the Constituion gives the government can be exercised in whatever way the government sees fit, regardless of how it affects individual rights. Segregated schools would be fine under that formulation.
Fred:
“It is intellectually dishonest to compare Christians to the Taliban. If you can’t see the difference between one TV personality calling for the assassination of someone with the killing of 3,000 people on 9/11 there is no hope of a rational discussion with you.”
Sigh. Yes, because murder is only bad after a cetain number. And the fact that both the Taliban and people like Dobson would impose thier religious views on the rest of us and deny entire classes of people their civil rights through the penalty of law doesn’t mean a thing to you, does it?
#13 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“So the Constitution protects things that aren’t a part of it????? That doesn’t make any sense.”
Stop the semantic games and identify the right to privacy in the constitution then.
#14 by Kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle
You are the one playing semantic games. If you don’t think the COstituion protects unenumerated rights, despite the 9th, and you think that a Constitution that designed to protect individual freedom, that gaurentees protection from government searches and sezures, that mandates religious freedom and freedom of association, doesn’t protect the rigt of all people to be private, if you think that the government should be able to woeil its power with concenr for the right of people to belet alone, then just say so. Stop trying to pretend that the 9th doesn’t exist.
#15 by big dave from queens at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
In response to Fred:
I’m glad you recognize that the Constitution was set up for people of all faiths or non faiths to have equal protection under the law.
I agree. Good Christians agree as well.
The people who disagree are the RW Christians who have hijacked the GOP. Criticizing them isn’t anti-Christian. In fact you could argue it’s pro Christian since the REpublican Party is directly at odds with the good Christians you cited who drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the intent you so correctly stated.
#16 by Fred at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Kevin: Dobson would impose thier(sic) religious views on the rest of us and deny entire classes of people their civil rights through the penalty of law doesn’t mean a thing to you, does it?
Fred: Everything you said in the above quote is a lie. Again, why do liberals lie so much?
#17 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“If you don’t think the COstituion protects unenumerated rights, despite the 9th, ”
I never said that. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I challenged you assertion that their exists in the constitution a right to privacy. So, show it to me.
#18 by CharlesH at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“Without a right to privacy, the evangelical leaders and their trained-seal representatives are free to tell you who you can live your life with, how you have to raise your children, what you can do in your bedroom, etc, etc, etc.”
Nope. The Constitution doesn’t contain a right to privacy, but it also doesn’t grant the government any such powers. It’s not fundamentally a document that lists what rights we have, it’s a document that lists and limits what powers the government has; the government has the enumerated powers and no others. That’s how the Constitution protects rights that aren’t in it. Some of the framers argued against the inclusion of any Bill of Rights because they were afraid that that would blur this distinction in people’s minds; looks like they were right.
Bill Peppin already said this, but it’s worth repeating. A LOT.
Now we’re in a lot of trouble because for the past century the Supremes the government appointed have been willing to say anything the government wants to do is “regulating interstate commerce”. Except some of the cases where the Bill of Rights, later amendments, or personal convictions disagree; but not all of those either.
#19 by Ranting Tommy at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Violent extremists of any religion are evil people. This includes Pat Robertson and Osama Bin Laden. It also includes George Bush and The Saudi Royal Family.
Religion is false, which is why it is so easily used to manupulate gullible people that believe in a magic man in the sky.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever. They are all false, there is no god, and, if there were, there would be no need for religion.
The very existance of religion is ample proof that god does not exist.
#20 by kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
CharlesH
No, not really. What you are describing is a lawless society. Or, at a minimum, a soceity that cannto function. The Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the power to have an air force, for example, and yet we do and no one raises an eyebrow. Why? becasur the Constitution is not just a list the things the government can do, it is a document that sets the structure of the government and explains what the government is supposed to do and puts some limits on how it can go about doing thos ethings. The government is supposed to provide fo rthe national defense - -no one argues that just becasue air forces aren’t mentioned, or missle commands, or anything like that that they are not constitutional.
Second, your formulation allows for the states to have thing slike segregated schools and sodomy laws. If the OCnstitution of the US doesn;t protect them, then the states can do what they want to people they do not like. And, Frnakly, so can the federal government. Segregated army? Legal under your theory. Segregated road contracts? Same thing. Outlaw gays working in trucking companies? Yep. I could go on, but you get the point. Taxing gays more than strigahts? Yep. Taxing people who don’t spank their kids more than those who do? yep. All of that is perfeclty constitutional under your formulation.
Uncle
See, your being disengenous here. If you think a right has to be speled out for it to exist, then you mus tthink the 9th doesn’t exist. period. End of story.
#21 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
‘See, your being disengenous here. If you think a right has to be speled out for it to exist,’
Never said that. I said that the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Still waiting for you to show it to me.
#22 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Since I apparently can’t get you to admit that the consitution does not mention a right to privacy, I’ll go ahead and get what my point was going to be before the mental gymnastics:
How are unenumerated rights determined?
A question I’ve asked before. Seems a bit dangerous to just decide what they are without a means to specify them, don’t you think? After all, the ownership of slaves was once thought to be a right and, well, that’s just insane.
#23 by Fred at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Kevin: The LA Times has an interesting, if disturbing, article on evangelical leaders’ attempts to create a class of politicians that are little more than non-thinking rubber stampers for whatever said leaders tell them to do.
Fred: We don’t want those evil evangelicals to actually think that they have a right to organize and vote so that they vote in people who believe as they do. We must leave governance to the enlightened athiest class. They will make sure that everything is done right.
#24 by kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“Since I apparently can’t get you to admit that the consitution does not mention a right to privacy,”
No, it does not say “right to privacy”. But you ar ebeing disengenous, becasue if you think that unemuerated rights can be protected by the COnstitution, then you believe that the 9th is not in operation. So you don;t believe that unenumerated trights can be protected by the COnstitution — something the Founders would never and did not agree with.
As for determining them? We have logic, the words of the Constituion, and the purpose of the Constitution — “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
We ar enot children, Uncle, we are adults. the FOunders knew that, and they, through the 9th and the deliberate choice to leave things open-ended, have entrusted us to deal with the world in a fashion that preserves the purpose of the Constitution. What you are arguing for is to allow the government unfettered abality to mess with me becasue they do not like who I am becasue you don’t want our current society to step up and take the responsibility the COnstitution assigns to us.
If the purpose of the Constituion is to preserve individu liberty, then there must be a right to privacy within the Constitution. Otherwise, the government will be free to abuse its granted powers to interfere with my private life. And then I am not free, am I?
#25 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“No, it does not say “right to privacy”
Thank you.
“But you ar ebeing disengenous. . .Founders would never and did not agree with.”
Now, you’re just making shit up.
“We have logic, the words of the Constituion, and the purpose of the Constitution ”
You said before those words were meaningless since you buy that living document, penumbra myth.
“We ar enot children, Uncle . . . And then I am not free, am I? ”
Nothing to do with anything i said. I’m not arguing anything. I stated:
1 - no right to privacy is mentioned in the constitution
2 - There are unenumerated rights, such as the right to privacy
3 - Asked how you thought we should determine exactly what those unenumerated right were.
#26 by kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Uncle
“Thank you”
Notice, that does not mean that a right to privacy is not in the Constitution.
“Now, you’re just making shit up.”
Better defened that, Uncle, becasue I am not making anything up. The Founders put the 9th in there for a reason, and the Federalsit paers have more than one warning about assuming that the Bill of righs is exhaustive.
“You said before those words were meaningless since you buy that living document, penumbra myth.”
Now who is making shit up? I never said a word like that — not one time. The fact that you do not understand the living Constitution does not give you liscence to substitute your biases for fact. The words in the Constitution do have meaning (like “take” for example). I cannot help it if the menaing is vague on purpose. The Constitution does not say “cruel and unnusual punishment as defined in 1787.” It leaves the definition blank, so to speak, and it does that for a reason. Becasue they knew that society would change and encounter problems they could not think of it.
“Nothing to do with anything i said. I’m not arguing anything. I stated:
1 - no right to privacy is mentioned in the constitution
2 - There are unenumerated rights, such as the right to privacy
3 - Asked how you thought we should determine exactly what those unenumerated right were. ”
The implication of your argument is that there is no right to privacy protected by the Constitution since it is not explicitly stated in the document. If you accepted that unenumerated rights where valid, you wouldn’t harp on point one, you would deal only with point three. If that is not your intention, then you are not being clear. So, just say it up front right now: are or are not unenumerated rights protected by the Constitution.
#27 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“Notice, that does not mean that a right to privacy is not in the Constitution.”
Yes, it does. However, are not in agreement that rights not enumerated in the constitution can be protected by it? You know, the ninth and all that. That’s my thinking on it.
“Better defened that, Uncle”
I was referencing your diatribe about what you thought I think about the ninth. you were wrong on that point.
“Now who is making shit up? I never said a word like that — not one time”
See, sucks don’t it. Now, you have to defend a position you never took.
‘If you accepted that unenumerated rights where valid, you wouldn’t harp on point one, you would deal only with point three. If that is not your intention, then you are not being clear. ‘
I stated that several times, or so I thought. Apologies if I was unclear.
#28 by kevin at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
“Yes, it does. However, are not in agreement that rights not enumerated in the constitution can be protected by it? You know, the ninth and all that. That’s my thinking on it.”
The typo interferes, but I think we you are saying that the COnstitution protects rights that ar enot in it, with you defining “in it” as explicitely stated and me defining “in it” as including unemumerated rights. if thats the case, then yes, I think we agree. I am just abit unclear on why you think the Constituion would protect unenumerated rights under your definition of “in it”. Actually, I guess, what difference foes the distinction make, I suppose is a better question.
“See, sucks don’t it. Now, you have to defend a position you never took. … I stated that several times, or so I thought. Apologies if I was unclear.”
Obviously, I wasn’t hearing what you were saying, so I apologize also.
#29 by SayUncle at August 25th, 2005
| Quote
Sorry john, did you comment under another name
#30 by tgirsch at August 26th, 2005
| Quote
According to Uncle, there’s no Oxygen in the atmosphere. He can’t see it, you can’t point it out to him, therefore it’s not there!
Sorry, Unc, but you’re splitting hairs in the worst possible way. I think you’ve been reading too much Xrlq or something. Maybe you would be happier if Kevin had said “Roberts doesn’t think the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution” rather than “in” it, but you’re arguing over a distinction without a practical difference.
By your nitpicky definition, “separation of powers” is not “in” the Constitution, because those words aren’t specifically listed. But it can be inferred, as MTB points out, based on things such as the fourth amendment, free exercise rights, etc. Unless you can explain to me how the fourth amendment makes any sense at all without the implicit expectation of privacy from undue government interference, then I’d have to submit that some right to privacy is in the Constitution, even if it’s not explicitly listed.
#31 by Fred at August 26th, 2005
| Quote
Roberts is done for. Twenty years ago he referred to the War of Northern Aggression as the War Between the States instead of the Civil War. Obviously, he is a racist who wishes the Confederacy had won the war. Right, Leftist Loons?
#32 by SayUncle at August 26th, 2005
| Quote
‘in it’ and ‘protected by it’ are different.
Simple: protection from unreasonable searches and seizures and a right to be secured in person, papers and effects does not denote a right to abortion, or a right not to fill out the census, or a right not to give wage information to the .gov, or a right to not have your garbage searched, or a right to not be put in a governmental database. All of which I would think violate privacy but have nothing to do with fourth amendment protections.