From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: A Call To High Holy JIHAUD!
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:46:42 GMT
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Nov8.032922.6584@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:

>In article <1992Nov7.212522.24219@wetware.com>
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>] (And hopefully sometime after FOCA passes, the Supreme Court will
>>] bring itself to overturn Roe and *finally* admit that several specific
>>] rights to privacy do not a generic right to privacy make.)

>>] Pro-Choice              Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>>]             Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

>>Beth, 

>>as you have brought up this Point, I must take up
>>the sword and Oppose you on this Point.

>>That there have been specific enumerations of the 'right to privacy'
>>does not mean that the 'generic right of privacy' has NOT been
>>reserved unto the PEOPLE!

>To the states or the people, drieux....

To both, actually - and one presumes that the states only have those
rights that their people allow tham. But I imagine that depends on
the constitution of the state in question.

>>I do NOT see how you wish to deprive a FREE SOCIETY of
>>the Rights that are Reserved UNTO IT, collectively and
>>specifically, merely as you do NOT wish to admit to
>>the fundamental grounds of 'british common law' as
>>the seed bed from which american jurisprudence blooms!

>I'd be interested in seeing what in British common law you think
>guarantees a right to privacy.  I think the whole point of saying that
>the rights granted in the Constitution are not intended to deny or
>disparage other rights posessessed by the people was to protect rights
>already guaranteed by other sources: the state constitutions and
>British common law.  So anything in British common law guaranteeing a
>right to privacy would obviously be important to my view of the
>matter....

In the last Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton argued against a
Bill of Rights on the grounds that the Constitution specifically
stated which powers were given to the Federal Government, therefore
all other powers and rights devolved to the people.

His main argument (prophetically) was that be enumerating some rights,
those who would deny our rights would simply argue that if it was not
in the BoR, then it is not a right.

Since Hamilton was very active in creating the Constitution (read
Madison's notes on the debates), then we might assume that his
later writings in the FP, along with those of Madison and Jay would
indicate some of what they had hoped the Constitution would provide.

I suppose that this sounds like the spirit of the law vs the letter
of the law argument, but I for one believe that in their writings
these men put forth the *vision* they had for these United States.
BTW - one reason I voted for Clinton was that he alone seemed to
have some idea of a *vision* for this country. Bush said he did not
understand this *vision thing*, and Perot's visions seemed closer
to paranoia.

>Anyway, as I'm sure you've heard me say before, it's not a matter of
>my wanting to disparage rights possessed by the people, it's a matter
>of my being scared shitless of a Supreme Court claiming things are in
>the Constitution that aren't in there because the Supreme Court is
>almost impossible to rein in....

>-- 
>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

>Cthulhu for President -- when you're tired of voting for the lesser of 2 evils.

Pro the thought that when we speak of ourselves as free people we
include both sexes.

Bob.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:58291 talk.politics.mideast:21862