Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I wasn't very clear that my interest is in the "privacy" rights that I mentioned. Some time back one of this forum's members insisted that there is no constitutional "right" to privacy. I was curious about that statement then, and now I'm not able to find the comment in a search. Let me use the most volatile of the "judicial activism" charges as an example. There is of course no constitutional "right" to abortion, and the states exercised their legislative right to address that issue as they saw fit. My question in this and the other "privacy" issues I listed, is what specific element of the constitution could be interpreted by SCOTUS as justification to supercede state law?
|
Ok, I remember that thread. Basically, someone said that roe v wade was judicial activism because there was no inherent right to privacy. I had to counter that because the 4th amendment is the right to privacy, with exceptions via warrants. The 'justification' was the 'inherent right to privacy' was broadened to include doctor/patient medical advice which assumed that abortions became a medical practice covered under the right to privacy. That isn't exact wording nor is it copied off the decision. I can look that up and put it on here later.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
|