From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Privacy    (was Re: what the hell is HR 4983
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:28:12 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <F7NIVT8@taronga.com> kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>- Right, "powers" not delegated to the U.S., not prohibited to the states
>- or reserved for the states and the people.  It doesn't say "rights".  I
>
>	Correct.  Governments have no rights - they have powers. 

Quite right.  I'd assumed you were talking "state's" rights and was
pointing out that it said "powers not delegated to the U.S.", etc...,
NOT "rights not delegated to the U.S.", etc...  IMHO rights can only be
talked about in the context of individuals.

>	You're wrong.  You say you've read the Tenth Amendment.  Go 
>   back and read the body of the document.  If we're interpreting the 
>   Constitution literally (which we must do, or we might as well use 
>   a Ouija board) then the Federal government does not have the power 
>   to make or enforce laws against murder, theft, etc. unless such 
>   crimes occur in the District of Columbia or (if we cheat) if money 
>   changes hands interstate as part of the crime.  Much of the WoD is 
>   in violation of the Constitution, for example.  The Brady Bill, if 
>   passed, would violate the Constitutional limits on the power of the 
>   Federales.  Of course, the SC refuses to do its duty, so the US 
>   Constitution isn't worth the hemp it is written on.  
>
>	Murder laws are a States Rights issue! 

So if you had a right to life in Texas, but not in Oklahoma, and went
visting your in-laws in OK and got killed, too bad?  No thanks, I'd
rather that rights issues were decided on a Federal basis rather than a
state by state basis.  Actually, if I recall correctly, this was one
reason for scrapping the Confederation and starting over w/the
Constitution.

>- certain age to drink, etc...).  So if you said that the Feds had no
>- business telling the States to raise min. drinking laws to 21 or risk
>- losing highway funds or lower highway speed limits to 55MPH, I'd agree
>- with you, but via Admendment #9, I don't see how the Feds were wrong
>- with protecting an (implied) right to privacy.
>
>	Suppose the Supreme Court upheld the "implied" right of a man 
>   to beat his wife in private.  Do you think people would object?  Why 
>   or why not?  How is this different from a woman's "implied" right 

Well, as I pointed out in a different post, the wife's right to
privacy is being violated by being beaten.  If you didn't see it,
post and I'll repost it.

>   to cause physical injury to her child during an abortion?  If you're 

No thanks, the abortion issue has taken enough bandwidth in tx.politics
already.

>   going to argue that a man has no such right to beat his wife, do you 
>   also feel that a man has no right to physically discipline his (born) 
>   children.  Why or why not?  If a beating would violate a wife's own 

Are you equating children with a man's wife?

Not having any kids, I can't say what I would do to discipline my
kids.  When I do, maybe I'll have a different perspective.  But as of
today, IMHO, kids (let's say for the sake of argument, under 7) aren't
little adults who you can sit down and reason with as you would another
adult.  So if you give them a little slap on the butt and they get the
idea that, "Oh, I wasn't supposed to do that." you haven't harmed them
and they've learned something.  Pulling out the belt and blistering
their butt does not fall into this category.

>   rights, would not the children also have their rights violated when 
>   spanked?  Does mandatory public education violate Amendment XIII?  
>   Does conscription/draft/selective-service violate Amendment XIII?  
>   If the Federales willy-nilly ignore ENUMERATED rights . . .  

Hey, I don't disagree that the Feds haven't ignored ENUMERATED rights -
but that doesn't mean that I've given up ALL hope that I can get
protection from unenumerated rights.

>        AMENDMENT IX 
>           The enumeration in the Constitution of certain 
>        rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage 
>        others retained by the people. 
>
>	Let's be honest.  The Ninth is a flowery statement without 
>   any real substance.  It doesn't give any indication of what falls 
>   in the category of unenumerated rights.  It is impossible to 
>   prove (or to disprove) that a right is protected my the Ninth,
>   so IMHO it has no teeth. 

Hmmm, I look at it from the point of view of what is required to lead a
decent existence through my own effort.  IMHO, one of these things is a
right to privacy.  In a book which I've got at home, which I can quote
from if you're interested, the author, when discussing the r.t.p.,
quotes from 3 different SC judges who acknowledge that the r.t.p.,
i.e., the right to be left alone is necc. for a decent existence.  I
believe 1 or 2 used to 4th to determine that it did exist.

I suppose it would be nice if we had all of our rights laid out so we
could look at them but we don't.  Can I think of situations were I
think the 9th could be misused?  Yes, I can.  Does this mean I would
rather we didn't have it?  Nope.

In the sense that we can't sit down w/pencil and paper and work through
some calculations and, voila, out pops a right!, no there is no way to
prove or disprove a right.  Do you have right to free speech?  A right
to freedom of religion?  Sure you do, they're in the BOR.  But WHY do
you have those rights?  Why were they put there?  If they weren't in
the BOR, would that mean you didn't have them?

>	The Tenth, on the other hand, explicitly says that the Feds
>   have no powers other than those explicitly listed in the United
>   States Constitution.  Now, the fact that the Supreme Court refuses 
>   to do it's self-proclaimed duty simply means they won't use the 
>   teeth, not that the teeth don't exist.  The lower courts have the 
>   power to use those teeth if the SC drops the ball.  The Rock Island 
>   Armory case is a good recent example. 

Well, they (in conjunction with the States) have the power to admend
the Const., and one of those admendments is #9.

WRT to the WoD, I'm interested in what you've got to say about that.
I personally am against it (and other laws outlawing now illicit
drugs) because of my r.t.p.

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.