Contributors

Friday, January 06, 2012

Rick Santorum May Not Like All the Attention He's About to Get

An article by Jake Tapper at ABC News shows why Rick Santorum is unfit to serve as president:
I pointed out that Democrats say that one of the reasons Santorum lost in 2006 was because they say he’s more conservative than mainstream America. One issue was Santorum’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception. Santorum said he still feels that a state should be able to make such laws. 
“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,” he said. 
“You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things,” Santorum said. “Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.”
So, his argument for allowing states to ban contraception is that the Constitution doesn't ban stupidity?

The Supreme Court's 1965 decision in Griswold vs. Connecticut overturned a law banning contraception. This decision was one of the first to outline a right to privacy in the Constitution. It drew upon the Ninth Amendment, which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The intent of this is obvious: there are many rights so basic that no one would think there would be a need to write them down. Those inalienable rights obviously include the most intimate decisions people make in their marriage: whether they have sex, what kind of sex they have and whether they have children.

This amendment also shows the Founders' foresight. They knew that times change, and that the Constitution shouldn't be used as a hammer to destroy current and future freedoms and rights.

The majority (7-2) of the court also argued that privacy is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. It would also seem that the Equal Protection Clause and the Commerce Clause also bear on the  issue, since contraceptives are manufactured in other states and countries and people could cross state lines to buy them. If you can buy guns this way, why not contraceptives?

The Fourth Amendment definitely implies a right to privacy, even though it doesn't explicitly mention the word:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is practically the dictionary definition of what privacy means.

In Rick Santorum's ideal universe, lack of children would be probable cause to raid your home and search for condoms and birth control pills. He says that we need to pump out more children so that Social Security doesn't go bust. If elected president will Santorum institute a medal of honor for women who bear eight children, along the lines of the Mutterehrenkreuz of Nazi Germany? Heck, if lots of children are important, why aren't Catholic nuns and priests getting busy? They are shirking their duty!

In 1960 many people thought John F. Kennedy couldn't be president because his Catholicism would dictate his decisions. Kennedy went out of his way to reassure the American people that this wouldn't be the case. But Santorum is going out of his way to tell us that his religion will dictate every facet of his administration.

If you think religion mixed with politics is a good thing, read a little history, especially the reigns of King Henry VIII, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I. For good measure, read about the Huguenots in France. In those days Protestants and Catholics murdered each other by the thousands. And it's still going on today in Iraq, with Sunnis and Shiites going at it. If you think that only Muslims murder each other over religion these days, you need only look to Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants were still killing each other only 15 years ago.

And if you think it can't happen here, just look at the string of religiously motivated murders of doctors in America, as recently as 2009 when George Tiller was gunned down in a Kansas church.

With all this abortion and contraception posturing by Santorum, the irony is that his wife Karen had a second-trimester abortion in 1996 in order to save her life. I don't criticize him for the abortion, just for wanting to prevent other people from having the same option.

This fact which has not gone unnoticed by the Paul campaign, and I expect things will start to get very ugly very soon.

6 comments:

juris imprudent said...

So, his argument for allowing states to ban contraception is that the Constitution doesn't ban stupidity?

Yes, and on that he is right. That echos Madison, who held that the powers of the federal govt were few and specific and the powers of the state govts were general and many.

And the decision did not rely on the 9th. It would have been much sounder if it had. Haven't you ever heard of "emanations and penumbras"? Guess that's why you didn't quote from it or link to it. Too bad, you might have learned something if you bothered to read it.

You might also make note of what the 10th Amdt says, as it too is relevant - particularly to fools who adore the federal govt reaching into any area of life and governance.

Mark Ward said...

I've always found it amusing how the right using both the Constitution and the Bible as blunt instruments to beat people over the head with vis a vis their ideology. The word "interpretation" doesn't enter in to their vocabulary because there is only one definition of what it means: THEIR'S.

Of course, this whole thing brings up a larger problem for the GOP. They want a Santorum or Paul up there so they can prove a point: We are hard right, fuckers! And now we are going to defeat Blackie McHitler. Romney won't do because he's too much of a pussy moderate and if he wins...well, it just won't be the same. Yet he is the one who could win and has the best chance to do so. Gingrich's recent assertion of banding together to defeat Romney and nominate a real conservative is essentially the same thing as organizing a circular firing squad.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Jaysus M are you really so petrified that your Hero may lose the election that you bashed your head in with a hammer? Paul may be many things (even I get the crazy uncle part) - but an interchangeable candidate with Santorum? For fuck sakes - get your head out of your ass. Hillary versus Obama was less of a choice than Paul or Santorum.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Correction to my last post. I saw McCain on the news last night. He is now officially the crazy uncle of the Republican Party.

Santa said...

Too true, Juris. I used to actually like and support John McCain and is now the crazy uncle!

juris imprudent said...

Santa and me in agreement? That may cause some heads to 'splode.