Demand A Right To Privacy Amendment

[MostlyLurks]

Since Alito's confirmation, many DU'ers have suggested that a Constitutional amendment for the right to privacy is now a must. I agree.

That said, the issue would be a complete win for Democratic candidates: who's going to argue against a right to privacy - only the nutters, and that's exactly what we want.

So, how do we get this idea to the people who matter - the DNC, the power players and the policy makers. Has anybody here got connections? Has anybody here got "juice"? Let's hear ideas.

One, already suggested, is that we need to write to the DNC and demand that this become a major component of the '06 cycle and the '08 Presidential race. Write in paper and send via snail mail: it's a know fact that traditional mail generates better responses than e-mail where members of Congress are concerned, so I have to think that same is true of writing to the DNC.

Don't worry about what you write or how you say it: just make sure you tell the DNC in no uncertain terms that you DEMAND an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing an individual's right to privacy.

If you've read Lakoff, you know that one of the things he points out is that the righties are good at "dual use legislation": bills that underpin a variety of rightist causes. So tax breaks function to reduce taxes, but also to reduce the pool of funds that can be used for government programs.

A privacy amendment would be such a "dual use" amendment, striking at a whole host of issues we, as liberals/progressives/Democrats/whatever, believe in.

So go to it: write those letters. And let's get some ideas about how we can do something more than just write.

Mostly

[Nikki Stone 1]

1. kick

kicked and recommended

[BushOut06]

2. I don't know if it would really matter

Their line of reasoning is that the fetus must be protected at all costs, that it's a separate life with its own full protections under the Constitution, therefore a woman's right to privacy doesnt apply in this case.

As far as wiretaps and other items go, Bush has already shown that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. What would another amendment mean to someone like him, except just another article to ignore?

[havocmom]

3. ::sigh:: We are STILL waiting on Equal Rights Amendment

Seems wiser to insist on enforcement of the ones we already have AND the laws on the books before we tackle a decades long quest to pass another amendment.

Tell Congress to fulfill their oaths!

And in lieu of Gen. Hayden's attack on the reporter asking him about the Fourth, we might ask Congress to start giving appointees a quiz on basic understanding of the Constitution ;)

[MostlyLurks]

4. I don't see what the ERA has to do with it.

This is exactly how Republicans and Democrats differ. Let's take gay marriage as an example.

Gay marriage has already been outlawed in something like a dozen states and more laws are on the way. And yet the Republicans will bluster in '08 about a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. Why? The states are already moving to outlaw it and those that don't will not be able to enforce their laws on those that do because of that. It's basically a meaningless amendment, toothless.

So what good does a Constitutional amendment do?
1. It motivates the base. It's red meat.

2. More important, it is a statement of ethical/moral position. It is unequivocal: we, the Republicans, hereby draw and unmistakable line in the sand that says "we don't like gays". That sort of clarity appeals to people. It tells people that the Republicans are willing to take a clear and unmitigated stand for or against something. It lets them know WHAT they are voting for, not just who they are voting for.

I believe this is what we'd see if we really exploded the so-called "values vote". When people talk about "values", they're more often than not talking about their ability to guage where a person stands.

Talk to an "undecided" who voted against Kerry and you'll get the response that they "didn't trust him" or "didn't like him". This is because Kerry got lost in the minutiae. He had policy and legislation, but he never was really comfortable talking to people about how his personal beliefs shaped and influenced his political beliefs. They didn't know his "values", where HE personally stood.

This is really where people like Limbaugh get most of their mileage. Limbaugh can raise the "Commie" flag because Kerry never clearly said "I believe in X and therefore I have the policy Y". He tried, but he just wasn't very good at it. Instead, he says "I have policy Y" and then Limbaugh can tack on "...because he believes X".

But the larger picture is that the Democratic party doesn't prop up their candidates with well-known stances like the R's do. Any Republican running for office, especially Federal, automatically gains the well-established memes that go along with being a Republican. So even if that candidate disagrees with a plank or makes no strong opinion either way, people feel like they understand his/her "values". The shop-worn components of the platform - abortion, taxes, entitlements, etc - give the candidate a free ride on the "values" meme.

We like to think that the Republicans are winning just because they're better at playing the media. But think about how their well-known platform elements "explain" them even without a soundbite (although the explanation offered may not jibe with reality):
Gay Marriage Amendment = traditionalism.
Flag Burning Amendment = patriotism.
Anti-Abortion = faith-centered.
Anti-Tax = for the "common man".

Viola! Plug any Republican candidate into a campaign and they immediately gain the image as a traditional, patriotic, faith-centered champion of the common man. Half the work is done in terms of defining them.

What analog do Democratic candidates have? None. And, of course, being the individualists we are, we think that's great. But it also means our candidates have to spend a whole hell of a lot of time explaining their beliefs while the Republican has already done it.

And that's where this amendment would come in: while I personally believe it would be a legislative boon, it would also help Democratic candidates bolster their "values" by having some plank on which people could feel familiar with them. "She's a Democrat so she believe in the right to personal provacy."

I think this sort of "built-in positioning" could go a long way toward taking back the word "liberal" and defining it on our own terms. Liberals support the right to privacy. How can that be spun as a bad thing without the opponent revealing an opposition to privacy?

Mostly

[havocmom]

5. ERA has nothing to do with it, except to illustrate that amending

the Constitution is not quickly done. I have a daughter who is now older than I was when we first tried to get the ERA through.

We don't have the luxury of that kind of time. Get the laws on the books NOW enforced and problem will be solved. Trying to divert attention to amending the Constitution won't help the immediate problems and will use resources we could better spend trying to enforce the Constitution and laws we already have.

The criminal junta has already pissed on the Constitution. Adding to it won't help. Holding them and Congress to the oaths to protect it, now that might be a help

There's already laws against murder. More laws against it doesn't deter murders much.

We need to enforce what is already on the books.