tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post5228526401363574548..comments2023-09-01T06:47:49.231-05:00Comments on First Amendment Religion Clauses: Words Out of ContextHistory Mattershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04564109406277635090noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post-7581374338484912872008-10-28T12:22:00.000-05:002008-10-28T12:22:00.000-05:00crypticlife:I freely confess that Roe and Griswold...crypticlife:<BR/><BR/>I freely confess that Roe and Griswold are a little out of my sphere. But your comment triggers my memory enough to convince me that you are correct. Thanks for adding that!<BR/><BR/>And I agree there are both bad judgments and bad laws out there. It's not a perfect system, but overall it's pretty darned good considering that it is being managed by human beings with all our foibles. I just hope we can gradually return to looking at what was meant by the Constitution rather than the more creative interpretations we often see.History Mattershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04564109406277635090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8402705924308796713.post-38203693684010689472008-10-28T12:09:00.000-05:002008-10-28T12:09:00.000-05:00I had thought the first of the "right to privacy" ...I had thought the first of the "right to privacy" Constitutional cases was <A HREF="http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/479/case.html" REL="nofollow">Griswold v. Connecticut</A>, on contraception. Supposedly it comes from the fourth amendment freedom from search and seizure creating a "penumbra" of rights and the ninth amendment giving unnamed rights to the people.<BR/><BR/>As I'm sure you do, I find this to be somewhat sketchy reasoning. Even though I think the law in Griswold was a terrible one (I think it was a blanket prohibition on contraception, even in marriage), I'm unconvinced of the general right of privacy in the Constitution. In Douglas' (who wrote the SC opinion in that case) defense, he supports it in a way that's not unreasonable. His opinion at least deserves to be read before being deemed judicial activism. Perhaps the legislative process should have been used to overturn it rather than the judicial. The unfortunate aspect of the legislative process is that a law can be ridiculous but still remain on the books if it doesn't affect sufficient numbers of people (i.e., votes). And in the meantime, people can suffer under it.CrypticLifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05313033952671292402noreply@blogger.com