Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (USSC+)

Russell Turpin
Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:38:53 +0000

John Hall:
>BB quoted some of the opinion, here is some of the dissent.  Well, actually 
>quite a lot of it.

There's an important question to ask the
conservative side of this issue: What is the
purpose of the ninth amendment? When do you
think it should apply? Can you give examples?

Or do you believe it is just window dressing
that has no real use at all?

Both the ninth and fourteenth amendments are
open. They refer to "rights," "privileges,"
and "immunities" that must be protected,
without any specification of WHAT rights,
privileges, and immunities are intended. It's
not too hard to view them as an invitation
that the Constitutional rights of individuals
and the scope of those rights should be
liberally interpreted.

A counter view is that these are badly written
amendments, and that such open text should
just be ignored. But ignoring parts of the
Constitution is NOT conservative! It seems to
me that any serious interpretation has to give
substantive meaning to these phrases. The
critics don't like how the Supreme Court has
interpreted these phrases. Fine. But don't
stop there. If you don't like one
interpretation, I think you are obliged to
offer a different one.

STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*