Constitutional “Expert” Ron Paul Fumbles Privacy Question

By Bill O'Connell, on January 8th, 2012

In the presidential debate on January, 7, in New Hampshire, ABC’s panel pressed hard to have the candidates say whether they believed states had a right to make contraceptives illegal and whether there was a Constitutional right to privacy. Romney, sidestepped it like a skilled matador, Ron Paul fumbled it.

The fumble came when Paul said there is a Constitutional right to privacy and it comes from the Fourth Amendment. However, here is what the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. against unreasonable {emphasis mine} 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.

If there is a Constitutional right to privacy, then no searches or seizures could be allowed under any circumstances. You would only need to say, sorry, that’s private and your rights could not be infringed. When the Supreme Court has ruled on privacy issues before they have relied on the Ninth Amendment and the flexible Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps Paul should brush up before saying he is the only one who believes in following the Constitution.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Authored By Liberty's Lifeline

Rogue

This argument is specious. Saying the right to privacy doesn’t exist in spite of the plain language of the 4th doesn’t hold water.
As Bill notes “The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
What do you call it if I have a right not to be searched in my person? Or have undesired people in my house? or have my papers to be left unread?
According to Websters “privacy” is “freedom from unauthorized intrusion” and “secrecy.”
Seems like a pretty dang close parallel to the fourth.

I have a right to vote, yet under certain circumstances, it can be denied.
I have a right to free speech, yet in certain circumstances it can be denied or restricted.
In fact under certain circumstances every single right I have can be denied or restricted; including the right to continue living.
So the mere fact that rights can be abridged, in no way implies that they do not exist.

I think Roe v Wade is one of the reasons so many don’t want to agree to the idea of a right to privacy. This is based on a fallacy that was introduced as part of Roe v Wade, to wit that a right to privacy implies a right to commit criminal acts so long as they are kept “private.” This inane argument should simply be dismissed out of hand.

Using the Supreme Court as a measuring stick also fails since it is the same court that decided Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, Wickard v Filburn and Roe v Wade. Cases which prove the court makes decisions based on political expediency and personal prejudice not with any particular legal skill or unusual degree of integrity. The fancy words are only used to hide the reality of decisions made for personal reasons based on personal bias. There is no reason to believe, and many reasons to doubt, the court is anymore able than the average literate American to determine what is or is not meant by particular clauses within the constitution.

Finally the 9th is a backstop amendment. It assumes the would be despot has already compromised other provisions and provides a final hurdle. (Apparently there was little hesitation at the 4th.) As anybody who works in security can appreciate, our forefathers practiced “defense in depth” even if they never heard the term. Everything about the constitution is designed to slowdown government excess. Obstacles were erected one after another to prevent would be tyrants from consolidating power and as impediments to ambition. So the fact that the court has used the 9th as the primary point of argument regarding the idea of privacy rights in no way invalidates the privacy protections of the 4th.
kfwhite@iupui.edu

Most of the misunderstanding on the abortion front revolves around an issue that could be reasonably referred to as a “right to privacy” but admittedly, this seems to trivialize the matter. I am “pro-life” in practice, but I am NOT a supporter of most anti-abortion legislation because they all fail to recognize the problem. You cannot go around “protecting” an unborn individual whose existence cannot be established easily, so any law protecting from “moment of conception” and by that, meaning some mysterious moment of egg fertilization, cannot be enforced. There is no reason to pass unenforceable laws. If, however, they are limited to a specific standard of testing for pregnancy before any medical procedure can be performed, that would be an entirely different matter. Because then you could argue that there is definitely another individual involved. But until you can establish a clear standard of pregnancy, there is no reason to limit a woman’s actions. In fact, you could even argue that every woman of childbearing age needs to be tested every month to decide “if” there is another individual created. It gets ridiculous when you try to argue “moment of conception” when that means that possibly every miscarriage has to be investigated as a possible homicide.

Can you imagine the untold suffering that would be imposed if women who have lost a child were subjected to insulting and unfeeling questioning about what she did or did not do to contribute to the death of her unborn child? Does anyone who tries to legislate this issue comprehend how far this would have to go if you really take the rhetoric seriously? At the very least, many miscarriages might be tried as “manslaughter” or something.

I am fully supportive of legislation that puts some controls on abortion decisions (especially those that leave most of the decision with the mother and her physician)to eliminate elective abortions. I see no reason for women who engage in sexual relations to be unduly protected from natural consequences so to speak! But you have to be sure that all forms of birth control are NOT outlawed by the legislation (e.g., you have to back off the standard that somehow every fertilized egg is a pregnancy, when it probably isn’t even true without birth control). As for other “loopholes” on rape, incest, or welfare of the mother, I again would default to giving some space to the doctor to take the lead on those decisions.
- Rogue
  
  Actually the argument that abortion must be legal or women would be constantly subject to pregnancy testing isn’t valid.
  
  It is, in most states, illegal for minors to consume alcohol. This doesn’t require all minors to be tested regularly to verify they have not been consuming alcohol.
  
  Making abortions illegal is a simple as making them illegal. Setting penalties for doctors who kill babies is pretty simple. The doctor knows what he is doing and may even get away with it for some period, but when caught he loses his license and goes to prison.
  
  If we provide a penalty for the mother who kills her 7 year old child why not a 7 month old child in the womb? No we won’t catch all of them or even most of them. We will catch some and that will provide the dis-incentive needed to greatly reduce the number of abortions.
  
  Your argument, that we can’t catch them all so we shouldn’t catch any is not valid.
  
  Is it possible false accusations will be made? As occurs with every other type of crime? Of course. We don’t base decisions regarding criminalizing murder or rape on whether or not the guilty might go free and the innocent may occasionally be convicted. Why should this crime be any different?
  
  Instead we try our best to make sure the innocent go free and as many of the guilty as possible are punished for their acts.
  
  About 1 million Americans are murdered in the womb every year. Making abortion illegal might easily reduce that number by 90%. That is 900,000 fewer murders every year.
kfwhite@iupui.edu

You can’t compare laws against alcohol comsumption with laws against murder. If anti-abortion legislation takes the form of restricting “acceptable” conditions of abortion and doesn’t make it murder, you are right. As I stated, I am supportive of legislation that makes it illegal for elective abortions–it’s a stupid form of birth control first and foremost!

But making it murder changes the entire equation. IF there is another entity that the law recognizes as a legal human being with rights, then it would be all too easy to interpret and extend the laws just as I said. In fact, laws against consumption of “illegal” drugs or consumption of alcohol by minors are just “social” management exercises.

Regulars

Half Baked

Petit Tyrants

Constitutional “Expert” Ron Paul Fumbles Privacy Question

Like this:

Page Two

SagoCom Tweets

Sago Raw

Regulars

Half Baked

Petit Tyrants

Constitutional “Expert” Ron Paul Fumbles Privacy Question

Share this:

Like this:

Page Two

SagoCom Tweets

Sago Raw