Local RNC chairman's opinion in my local paper...

[Hobarticus]

claims that there is no stated right to privacy in the Constitution.

This implied "right to privacy" is central to the protection of Roe v. Wade, and therefore, according to him, there is no guaranteed right to an abortion.

Anyone else running across this new little RNC talking point? To me, it's pretty conveniently short-sighted (there's LOTS of things that aren't mentioned by name in the Constitution), but depending on what side of the issue you're on it's either brilliant or flawed. Myself, I think it's flawed, even if you're a strict Constitutionalist.

[Fenris]

1. They make this argument a lot.

My ConLaw prof says the same thing.

[RobertSeattle]

2. Then let's make in a new Amendment and make it a campaign issue

[sable302]

3. I would dare them

to try and win over the general public with the 'you have no right to your privacy' line.

[tk2kewl]

4. We should redefine ther repuke platform plank for plank

to show what it really means

[bunkerbuster1]

7. They won't, though.

You'll notice that the only time you hear people arguing that there's no right to privacy to be gleaned from the Constitution, it's in these hifalutin academic discussions.

You don't see them going before John Q. Public and telling him that the government can be as intrusive as it likes. Which, if Roe were to be overturned, we could assume we'd see in other rulings.

First they came for the unwanted pregnancies, and I did not speak out because I did not have an unwanted pregnancy...

[sable302]

10. on the other hand

I would like to see repubs argue their way out of advocating for privacy.

Right to privacy could lead to gay marriage, or whatever thing we're supposed to be afraid will crop up next door.

still on the other hand...

Right to privacy could also lead to unrestricted unregistered gun ownership, the NRA could argue.

[Hobarticus]

9. That's the rub, isn't it...

I live in a pretty uptight anti-choice community, and I'm sure this kind of BS is hitting home. But, if you frame it in the context that 'no privacy, for anything, anytime' then it falls flat.

[meegbear]

5. Well Mr Chairman ...

I demand to see your personal financial records. You have no right to privacy.

[ArbustoBuster]

6. Idjit rightwingers...

The right to privacy isn't in the Constitution for the same reason they didn't state that we have the right to breathe air. The Founding Fathers considered it a bedrock of liberty. In fact, one can easily argue that the Third Amendment (no quartering of soldiers in private homes) and the Fourth Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") are both direct statements of the right to privacy, especially the Fourth.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Ok, so how do they explain their contradictory stance with the

National Do Not Call List... As Bush said about this issue, "50 million Americans can't be wrong"

They use privacy argument when it suits them instead of consistently.

[sable302]

11. you said it

they use it when it suits them. Just like everything else.

[Richard Steele]

12. I disagree that it is "either brilliant or flawed", as you say.

It is neither; it is simply DISHONEST.

The 4th Amendment? Have they ever heard of that?
Of course they have. They just find it a hindrance
to establishing totalitarian control.

Since the PEOPLE would never allow them to remove it,
they instead have mounted a propaganda campaign
to convince people that it doesn't say what it says.

If their "arguement" is valid, then could they please
show me where the Constitution contains this phrase:
"Republicans have the right to not be slapped by random strangers"?

What? That exact phrase is NOWHERE in the Constitution?
Well, then, I guess that settles that!

[Hobarticus]

13. True, I must amend it: Brilliantly flawed, and dishonest.

It's pure propaganda.

[AllegroRondo]

14. The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Looks pretty clear to me.