Comments on: Liberals Hate the Constitution

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:58:46 +0000

Sure, Acthole, that’s it. There’s no problem with having a right to privacy, but there’s a huge problem wiht having a right ot privacy.

By: actus

actus — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:45:20 +0000

Ah. So there is a problem wiht having a right ot privacy. Ok.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:28:49 +0000

Most like the basic concept, but in addition to not liking how the courts got to it, some of us aren’t too keen on what the courts have done with it, either.

By: actus

actus — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:26:47 +0000

I’d love it if we had a constitutional amendment that said ‘the right to privacy shall not be infringed.’ Its not like people don’t like the right itself, do they? They just dont’ like how the court got to it.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:26:01 +0000

TGirsch, I suppose you could turn anything around, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense to do so. Liberals obviously care very much about protecting the “constitutional” right to abortion, and are also wont to brag about the overwhelming majority of Americans who supposedly agree with them. If so, passing an amendment to make explicit what they claim is already implicit would seem to be a no-brainer. Why rack your brain over whether or not Judge Roberts will find a hidden “constitutional” right to abortion, if you think the votes are there to add a clear one that will be upheld by liberals, conservatives, originalists and strict constructionists alike?

Amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion, by contrast, would be downright weird. The original Constitution didn’t prohibit private citizens from doing anything. The current one does, but only in cases of slavery and bootlegging. Even the most ardent pro-lifer would be hard pressed to explain why the Constitution should prohibit the killing of the unborn, when it doesn’t even prohibit the killing of the born.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:57:32 +0000

Addison:

The day people start trying to intervene in my life based on what they suspect Shakespeare’s values were, you’ll have an interesting analogy. :)

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:55:48 +0000

Xrlq:

Has any prominent liberal proposed a constitutional amendment to codify that right and end the controversy over Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood once and for all? If not, why not?

Setting aside whether abortion truly is a “liberal” or “conservative” issue (which is debatable), the simple reason is that the status quo is on the side of those who oppose criminalization. And if “liberals” believe the Constitution can be construed to protect personal autonomy decisions such as abortion, then such an amendment isn’t necessary.

I could turn the question around, of course, and ask why conservatives haven’t openly tried to amend the constitution to prohibit it (for example, a “life begins at conception” amendment, or some such).

In neither case would the amendment actually pass, by the way.

By: SayUncle » Quote of the Day

SayUncle » Quote of the Day — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:19:39 +0000

[...] A comment by Addison over at Xrlq’s on penumbra, living constitution stuff: Yeah, I don

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:42:15 +0000

Aphrael, I think you my have fallen into the great sarchasm. This was not a serious post, just a tongue in cheek flame in response to TGirsch’s self-described “weekend flame bait.”

By: aphrael

aphrael — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:05:10 +0000

I reject the notion that ‘tgirsch’ speaks for all liberals.

This is a bit like me posting a blog entry claiming, on the basis of one post at one conservative web site, that conservatives hate freedom of speech.

I expect better of you.