Complications Ensue:
The Crafty Game, TV, and Screenwriting Blog


April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

November 2015

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

September 2017

October 2017

November 2017

December 2017

January 2018

March 2018

April 2018

June 2018

July 2018

October 2018

November 2018

December 2018

January 2019

February 2019

November 2019

February 2020

March 2020

April 2020

May 2020

August 2020

September 2020

October 2020

December 2020

January 2021

February 2021

March 2021

May 2021


Wednesday, November 30, 2005

[POLITICS] Right-wingers have been proposing all sorts of petty amendments to the Constitution, mostly as wedge issues. An amendment to prohibit burning the flag. An amendment to ban gay marriage.

Recently I heard the excellent idea that both liberals and libertarians ought to push for a Right to Privacy Amendment.

A Right to Privacy Amendment would prohibit the government from regulating private behavior except where it can demonstrate a compelling social interest. If a state or city, for example, made homosexual acts illegal, the burden would be on it to demonstrate that homosexual acts hurt other people, rather than the burden being on the accused to prove that government has no business in the bedroom. Likewise if someone wants to take peyote, the state would have to explain why that's anyone's business but his own. On the other hand, if someone wants to molest their child, the state would have little problem showing that it has a compelling interest in protecting the safety of minors.

It would not automatically establish a right to terminate a pregnancy. The anti-abortion argument is that the fetus is a human being, and the state obviously has a compelling interest in protecting human beings. However any attempt to restrict abortions would start from the presumption that a woman's body is her own business, and any law restricting them would have to establish that the fetus is an independent person under law. In other words a Right to Privacy Amendment wouldn't settle the argument, but it would, I think, force people to face the underlying issue.

Many state constitutions establish an explicit right to privacy -- California's does, in its first paragraph:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
However, at the federal level, the US Supreme Court has had to extract a "penumbra" of a right to privacy from various other amendments, e.g. the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violate....
Presumably it did not occur to the Framers that this did not establish a right to privacy, or I imagine they would have made it even clearer in the Bill of Rights.

A Right to Privacy Amendment would make a nice wedge issue itself, splitting the libertarians who'd like government to stop bothering them at all, from the religious right, who'd like the government to bother everyone who doesn't live in a manner of which they approve. And I'd love to hear any politician explain to Americans why they should not have a right to privacy.



Oh, I'm sure they'd start rolling out the whole "hey, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem, you're not a terrorist, are you? ARE YOU??" argument - same one we get here when we argue against identity cards (that could cost us anything up to £100 each, that will do nothing to prevent attacks, and that will probably make it easier for people to steal identities).

It would have to be very carefully worded, but it would be good to see them on the defensive for once.

By Blogger James Moran, at 6:09 AM  

You answer your own question there. The State *does* have a compelling interest in protecting the safety of minors. But, saddly, for the majority that interest is exactly the same reason why "the State" should prohibit consenting adults from engaging in homosexual acts. I mean, if gays can chew gum, they might even... dance!

(Same thing for peyote - "Bad example for the kids! (Everybody have a beer to celebrate.)" - as well as Parental Consent laws - "The Government must protect the rights of parents so they can protect their kids from a G-dless government!")

By Blogger David J Oakes, at 7:00 PM  

While I really like your idea, I'm pretty sure the Repugs will paint it as an abortion issue and therefore use it to energize their base.

By Blogger MikeyMo, at 2:05 PM  

Post a Comment

Back to Complications Ensue main blog page.

This page is powered by Blogger.