The "Right of Privacy" - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

DirtyHippieUTE · 01-12-2006, 02:11 AM

today was a good day to be a law student...

It is 7:00 and I am still in the library (I've been here since 6:00 AM). I had almost 100 pages to read for my 5 classes tomorrow. I've been going so fast I've almost forgotten what I read the moment I move to the next paragraph...

And then...

There it was.

"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."

I had no idea I was even reading Griswold v. Connecticut. The case that created the "right of privacy" upon which some of the most controvercial decisions of the century hinged.

I knew I'd be reading this crap someday, I didn't think it would be in my first year Criminal Law class...

If anyone would like... This is where I will explain why I think Roe v. Wade was a pile of crap.

DirtyHippieUTE · 01-12-2006, 03:00 AM

"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."

Penumbra: from Latin paene almost + umbra shadow: This is the word used to describe the sliver of light which can still be seen around a solar eclipse, the region of shadow around a sunspot, or the fading edge of one color in the rainbow as it changes to the next.

Emanations: like a "vibe" or a "radiation." This is the word used to describe the origination of the world by descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter. One might say "Emanations" are the mists of creation.

In other words... Justice Douglas reached into the "radiations" of the Bill of Rights to find a shadow that was suggested by previous cases to help create a right to privacy.

Roe v. Wade is based on smoke and mirrors. Wisps of whispers of rights which a line of cases suggest may exist somewhere in the bill of rights.

I should state at this point that this is not about Abortion. This is about the Supreme Court reaching out into space to find the ink with which they may rewrite the constitution.

Justice White in a later case (Bowers v. Hardwick) explained why the court should not endeavor to find new fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause. "The court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution."

Justice Douglas drew mainly from the 4th Amendment, replacing the wording "unlawful search and seizure" with "right of privacy."

Justice Black pointed out that this was a way to dilute the Constitution. "Privacy" can be expanded far beyond "unlawful search and seizure" to create a constitutional ban against many other things other than unlawful search and seizure which is what the framers wrote and intended by that Amendment.

The idea that I have a right to privacy against government invasion simply because an invasion of my privacy would be a deprivation of liberty sounds great until you consider the idea behind it.

ANYTHING I do, so long as it is "in private" can be justified in this manner.

I don't know if I have the mental capacity to make the connection tonight but this reminds me of something I heard on X96 as I was driving to work one day.

The DJs FLAMED about something the "Eagle Forum" had done that week (FYI: I can't stand the Eagle Forum). I can't remember but it was something anti-gay and anti-porn. The DJs went on and on about how consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom should be left alone.

The VERY NEXT story was about a man and his cousin who were separated and custody of their child was in dispute because they had engaged in an unlawful, incestuous relationship.

How do you draw a distinction? Once you open that door to anything "private" between "consenting adults" there is NO other line which can be drawn. Why is incest wrong? If measured by the same stick as homosexuality, there is no basis for the argument.

Now keep going... Why is statutory rape wrong? The decision to call an 18 yr old an "adult" is somewhat arbitrary. There is no magical change which occurs on a person's 18th birthday. They are no more or less wise or responsible than they were 24 hours ago. Yet that slight difference makes all the difference in the world.

Now expand that. We try some children in this country as adults. The court sees fit to try a 14yr old as an adult simply because the 14yr old engaged in "adult behavior." Why is a 14 year old held responsible for their criminal actions but not allowed to be given the responsibility to chose their own sexual actions?

My point is this... When judges go off the ranch and begin to create rights all by themselves, they open a Pandora’s box. A line has to be drawn somewhere and by diluting the Constitution to allow for one practice here and there which follows the whim of society, we erase that line and have no point of reference to which we can return.

Lest any of you should think I am a raging conservative lunatic. I will point out that I apply the same logic to the Bush wire tapping. If we open the door for one President to set aside due process, what is to stop another down the line from doing the same for an entirely different purpose? I don't care how venerable the quest to stop terrorism may be, we can not rewrite the rules just to satisfy the problem of the moment.

Respond if you will... It is late, I am tired and stupid. Mostly stupid...

Archaea · 01-12-2006, 05:19 AM

those who support these rights have never read these cases.

It is hard to read them and believe the justices weren't just legislating their personal mores.

non sequitur · 01-12-2006, 05:35 AM

Putting aside Roe v. Wade, aren't you glad that the Court has interpreted the Constitution to include a right to privacy? I know that I am. I like the idea that the court recognizes that what I do in the privacy of my own home is not the business of local legislators.

Archaea · 01-12-2006, 05:59 AM

I would have preferred it be created correctly so that precedent of just making up law for your own purposes not be the judicial standard.

Equal protection or due process may have been a better standard than what Justice Douglas or Blackmun did.

There was no effective way for government to do anything about it, so I care how it was arrived at.

bluegoose · 01-12-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I had no idea I was even reading Griswold v. Connecticut.

Griswold?

I love that guy. He was especially good in "Christmas Vacation".

realtall · 01-12-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluegoose

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I had no idea I was even reading Griswold v. Connecticut.

Griswold?

I love that guy. He was especially good in "Christmas Vacation".

Christmas Vacation is great, though I somehow missed the part about the trip to Connecticut.

Jeff Lebowski · 01-12-2006, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Putting aside Roe v. Wade, aren't you glad that the Court has interpreted the Constitution to include a right to privacy? I know that I am. I like the idea that the court recognizes that what I do in the privacy of my own home is not the business of local legislators.

Hoo boy, amen to that.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that one of the court decisions that paved the way for Roe vs. Wade was a decision to strike down laws outlawing contraception.

DirtyHippieUTE · 01-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homeboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Putting aside Roe v. Wade, aren't you glad that the Court has interpreted the Constitution to include a right to privacy? I know that I am. I like the idea that the court recognizes that what I do in the privacy of my own home is not the business of local legislators.

Hoo boy, amen to that.

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that one of the court decisions that paved the way for Roe vs. Wade was a decision to strike down laws outlawing contraception.

The problem wasn't the decision itself, it was the creme filling that they threw in with it. While almost all of the justices at the time concurred with the decision, several wrote separate opinions because they couldn't support the way that the Constitution was being watered down. There was sufficient language in the Constitution to provide for the ruling. However, the "right to privacy" was a new creation which was later used to create new "rights" for which the constitution does not provide.

While some may argue that the right to have an abortion or the right for consenting adults to sodomize each other in the privacy of their own bedroom may exist, they are not rights which are guaranteed by the constitution. Several cases following Griswold and Roe have in fact asked the court to do just that (i.e. state that the Constitution provides for a right to practice homosexual sex).

You have to wonder, what is the next "right" that will the court will be asked to rule upon?

01-12-2006, 02:11 AM	#1
DirtyHippieUTE Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,151	The "Right of Privacy" today was a good day to be a law student... It is 7:00 and I am still in the library (I've been here since 6:00 AM). I had almost 100 pages to read for my 5 classes tomorrow. I've been going so fast I've almost forgotten what I read the moment I move to the next paragraph... And then... There it was. "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." I had no idea I was even reading Griswold v. Connecticut. The case that created the "right of privacy" upon which some of the most controvercial decisions of the century hinged. I knew I'd be reading this crap someday, I didn't think it would be in my first year Criminal Law class... If anyone would like... This is where I will explain why I think Roe v. Wade was a pile of crap.

01-12-2006, 05:19 AM	#3
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	those who support these rights have never read these cases. It is hard to read them and believe the justices weren't just legislating their personal mores. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-12-2006, 05:59 AM	#5
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	I would have preferred it be created correctly so that precedent of just making up law for your own purposes not be the judicial standard. Equal protection or due process may have been a better standard than what Justice Douglas or Blackmun did. There was no effective way for government to do anything about it, so I care how it was arrived at. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

01-12-2006, 03:00 AM	#2
DirtyHippieUTE Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Moscow, ID Posts: 1,151	"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." Penumbra: from Latin paene almost + umbra shadow: This is the word used to describe the sliver of light which can still be seen around a solar eclipse, the region of shadow around a sunspot, or the fading edge of one color in the rainbow as it changes to the next. Emanations: like a "vibe" or a "radiation." This is the word used to describe the origination of the world by descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter. One might say "Emanations" are the mists of creation. In other words... Justice Douglas reached into the "radiations" of the Bill of Rights to find a *shadow* that was *suggested* by previous cases to help create a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade is based on smoke and mirrors. Wisps of whispers of rights which a line of cases suggest may exist somewhere in the bill of rights. I should state at this point that this is not about Abortion. This is about the Supreme Court reaching out into space to find the ink with which they may rewrite the constitution. Justice White in a later case (Bowers v. Hardwick) explained why the court should not endeavor to find new fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause. "The court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution." Justice Douglas drew mainly from the 4th Amendment, replacing the wording "unlawful search and seizure" with "right of privacy." Justice Black pointed out that this was a way to dilute the Constitution. "Privacy" can be expanded far beyond "unlawful search and seizure" to create a constitutional ban against many other things other than unlawful search and seizure which is what the framers wrote and intended by that Amendment. The idea that I have a right to privacy against government invasion simply because an invasion of my privacy would be a deprivation of liberty sounds great until you consider the idea behind it. ANYTHING I do, so long as it is "in private" can be justified in this manner. I don't know if I have the mental capacity to make the connection tonight but this reminds me of something I heard on X96 as I was driving to work one day. The DJs FLAMED about something the "Eagle Forum" had done that week (FYI: I can't stand the Eagle Forum). I can't remember but it was something anti-gay and anti-porn. The DJs went on and on about how consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom should be left alone. The VERY NEXT story was about a man and his cousin who were separated and custody of their child was in dispute because they had engaged in an unlawful, incestuous relationship. How do you draw a distinction? Once you open that door to anything "private" between "consenting adults" there is NO other line which can be drawn. Why is incest wrong? If measured by the same stick as homosexuality, there is no basis for the argument. Now keep going... Why is statutory rape wrong? The decision to call an 18 yr old an "adult" is somewhat arbitrary. There is no magical change which occurs on a person's 18th birthday. They are no more or less wise or responsible than they were 24 hours ago. Yet that slight difference makes all the difference in the world. Now expand that. We try some children in this country as adults. The court sees fit to try a 14yr old as an adult simply because the 14yr old engaged in "adult behavior." Why is a 14 year old held responsible for their criminal actions but not allowed to be given the responsibility to chose their own sexual actions? My point is this... When judges go off the ranch and begin to create rights all by themselves, they open a Pandora’s box. A line has to be drawn somewhere and by diluting the Constitution to allow for one practice here and there which follows the whim of society, we erase that line and have no point of reference to which we can return. Lest any of you should think I am a raging conservative lunatic. I will point out that I apply the same logic to the Bush wire tapping. If we open the door for one President to set aside due process, what is to stop another down the line from doing the same for an entirely different purpose? I don't care how venerable the quest to stop terrorism may be, we can not rewrite the rules just to satisfy the problem of the moment. Respond if you will... It is late, I am tired and stupid. Mostly stupid...

01-12-2006, 05:35 AM	#4
non sequitur Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,964	Putting aside Roe v. Wade, aren't you glad that the Court has interpreted the Constitution to include a right to privacy? I know that I am. I like the idea that the court recognizes that what I do in the privacy of my own home is not the business of local legislators.