Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.If the federal government has no authority "to deny or disparage" other rights, Ann, what makes you think you do? The argument that privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is hollow. The rebuttal ought to be "Exactly. So it follows the government has no authority to give itself privacy-invading powers that haven't been specifically delegated to it."
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Ann Coulter--Neocon Shill
"Conservative" columnist Ann Coulter disdains "...the (nonexistent) 'right to privacy.'
"I know as much about the 'right to privacy' as I know about any other made-up, nonexistent right," she snickers to her readers.
Yes, Ann, free people do indeed have a right to privacy. The lie you and other neocons perpetuate--that it is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights so therefore doesn't exist--is an intentional bit of disinformation. In a real sense, this propaganda abets the state in its control over people's lives and freeedom.
You know damn well the Constitution is not intended to enumerate all rights of free Americans, but to define the limits under which the national government can legitimately exercise power. You know damn well this was one of the concerns against adding a "Bill of Rights" to the Constitution--that people like you would construe it to mean only the rights mentioned must be recognized. And you know damn well that what you espouse would have been alien to the Framers, who wisely (in addition to Amendment IV) added:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You wrote; "The argument that privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is hollow."
True, it is hollow. It is also false. Reread the fourth amendment to the constitution. Where will one find a better definition of privacy than "....secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects" ? Absolutely nowhere. And they covered all the bases, just in case, some jackass claimed not to understand the parameters, they added the word "effects" to make sure semantics wasn't used to destroy the right to "privacy".
For one to claim that because the word 'privacy' wasn't used, even though all guarantees of it, by definition, was provided, is just dishonest. Robert Bork was not confirmed to the USSC for all the wrong reasons, but I am glad he was not. He either couldn't read or he was a facist that believed all rights are grants from the states. Evidently our "conservative" Ms.Coulter is succumbing to the same brand of eltism.
Absent the fourth amendment and nowhere does the Constitution grant government the power to invade the privacy of a citizen without serious, obvious and provable cause beforehand. Powers do not belong to the state unless granted by the constitution. They do not need to be expressly forbidden, if they are not expressly permitted they are disallowed. Just the exact opposite of the dynamic as regards citizens.
There is no possibility of an honest and intelligent person holding any other view. I submit that if we know them to be intelligent and they subscribe to the "no privacy right" argument they are dishonest. If we know them to be honest and they hold that view, then they are stupid. I can see no middle ground that would lead one to espouse a position so clearly in conflict with our Constitution.
This isn't even a close call, nothing could be more plainly evident.
SA, I specifically acknowledged that when I wrote:
"(in addition to Amendment IV)"
Post a Comment