From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:47:30 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <X6VZTB6w165w@major.panix.com>, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
> 
> > >Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
> > >considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
> > >as big a job to do.
> > 
> > I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
> > supposed to not be in support of?
> 
> The second, most likely.

Does that make Ronald Reagan a liberal (for supporting the Brady bill)?
All the police department supporting the Brady bill must be full of
liberals too.

> > Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
> > to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
> > conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
> > their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
> > confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
> > the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ?? Which amendment mentions the right to privacy?

From ROE v. WADE (410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)):

     The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.
     In  a  line of decisions,  however, going back perhaps as  far  as
     Union Pacific R.  Co. v. Botsford (1891), the Court has recognized
     that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain  areas
     or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying
     contexts  the  Court or individual Justices have indeed  found  at
     least the roots of that right in the First Amendment,  Stanley  v.
     Georgia (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v.  Ohio
     (1968),  Katz v.  United States (1967)...; in the penumbras of the
     Bill  of  Rights,  Griswold v. Connecticut (1965);  in  the  Ninth
     Amendment;  or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by  the  first
     section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska (1923).
     These  decisions make it clear that only personal rights that  can
     be  deemed "fundamental"  or "implicit in the concept  of  ordered
     liberty,"  Palko v. Connecticut (1937), are included in this guar-
     antee of personal privacy.  They also make it clear that the right
     has some extension to activities relating to marriage,  Loving  v.
     Virginia (1967), procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942),  contra-
     ception, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) {, family relationships,...
     and child rearing and education} ....
          This  right of privacy,  whether it be founded in  the  Four-
     teenth  Amendment's concept of personal liberty  and  restrictions
     upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court de-
     termined,  in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of the  rights  to
     the  people,  is  broad enough to  encompass  a  woman's  decision
     whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. 

The recent PA ruling (reaffirming a woman's right to have an abortion
before viability) emphisised ROE's foundation in the 14th amendment.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al. (See 744 F. Supp. 1323 (ED Pa. 1990) and 947 F. 2d 682 (1991)):

    (b)Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her
 pregnancy is a ``liberty'' protected against state interference by the
 substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
 Amendment.  Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of
 States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks
 the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such ``liberty.''  Rather,
 the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this
 Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the bound-
 aries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized
 society.  The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection
 to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e. g., Loving v.
 Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
 535, family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,
 child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.
 510, and contraception, see, e. g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S.
 479, and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from
 unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally
 affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,
 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453.  Roe's central holding
 properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
 Pp.4-11.

Note also this chilling line from the majority opinion:

    "If indeed the woman's interest in deciding whether to bear and 
    beget a child had not been recognized as in Roe, the State might 
    as readily restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy 
    to term as to terminate it, to further asserted state interests in 
    population control, or eugenics, for example."
        (See 744 F. Supp. 1323 (ED Pa. 1990) and 947 F. 2d 682 (1991))

>                                                    I'd love to see it,
> and shove it up the IRS's rectum come April 15. Please do hurry with
> your answer!

The 16th Amendment gives the Feds the power to inflict an income tax.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)