Unalienable Rights

In my constitutional philosophy class we’ve been discussing the constitutional basis for the Roe v. Wade decision. Off the top of one’s head it is heard to establish a firm constitutional foundation to support a “right to privacy.” And even if you can, how does the right to have an abortion fit into the notion of privacy? Here I’ll give a little background on the amendments supporting the case, then give a short evaluation and bring up some of the interesting issues this has had me thinking about.

I argued that the most legitimate way to establish some kind of “right to privacy” (which is essentially just an amalgamation of the “spirit” of the first 5 amendments) would be to use the 14th amendment’s privileges and immunities clause. Established in 1868, it states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States.” That, along with the 9th — “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” — makes a pretty good case for a sort of general protection of “privileges or immunities” for all citizens of the United States even against the governments of the individual states themselves.

But that’s not the way the Justices in Roe ruled. The justices used the “due process” clause (which immediately follows the privileges clause) in the fourteenth amendment to provide for a right to privacy. It reads: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

On it’s face, this seems kind of absurd. In Texas (where Roe was initiated) legislators were elected, they drafted a bill prohibiting abortion, passed it, and then enforced it. That’s due process–that’s how the government works.

Slipping past this non sequitur with ease, the Justices use what’s called the “substantive” interpretation of the due process clause. The substantive interpretation looks at the substance of a law to determine whether the State has “sufficient reason” for its implementation. In Roe the Justices claim that the state of Texas does not have “sufficient reason” to implement this law which violates the right to privacy.

I believe that women should have the right to an abortion. Period. However, I’m not that comfortable with the slippery way that Roe was decided. It seems to me that substantive due process lacks any kind of concrete protection of my individual freedoms. Not that a basis on the privileges and immunities clause is iron clad, but it feels a lot more justifiable. Worried as usual about how the government may hinder my freedom, I’ve been trying to think up a legitimate way to protect the freedoms of every individual. What constitutes those freedoms, and how can they be established in a way that would allow the government to function?

I’ll try to answer these questions tomorrow:

• If I were to rewrite the bill of rights to include all individual liberties which the government (either state or federal) may not impinge upon, what would they be?
• Would they have been incomprehensible to the original drafters? (probably)
• Would they still be able to function legitimately for the next 50 years? 100 years?

Play along and write your own!

This Made Me Giggle

Via Megan McArdle,

This is probably the funniest political commentary I’ve read in a long time.

You’re Welcome

Ron Paul Regression

To be honest, I was only a big Ron Paul fan until I started looking into his policies. I’d heard he was a libertarian hearkening for the glory days of the small-government GDP, and quickly responded “Great! He’s just like me.” Subsequently throwing most of my (rather limited) social capital behind him – throwing his name out at parties, extolling the merits of libertarianism while dropping his name, etc.

Once his presidential campaign started gaining momentum (thanks to youths far more dedicated and gullible than myself) I took the time to look into his policies and give them a good thinkin’ over. Despite both of our proclaimed libertarianism, I found very little ground on which I agreed with Dr. Paul: he’s one of the few anti-abortion libertarians (whom I really don’t understand); his notions of monetary policy are ludicrous (uninformed at best – maniacal at worst); he’s decidedly anti-immigration (possibly stemming from racist paleolibertarian roots); and, most importantly, like our current president he waves his irrationality (reflected by his nickname “Dr. No”) and refuses to either compromise or consider opinions which differ from his own.

After the natural disaster that is George W. Bush, I’ve pretty much decided that  what we need in a president is not someone “you wanna have a beer with,” but rather someone who inspires confidence while simultaneously displaying rationality tempered with personality. The president must be intelligent enough to think through proposed policies and amicable enough to cut through work with the extensive government bureaucracy for the good of the people.

I have new faith that Dr. Paul can do neither. The newsletter scandal makes me regret even the temporary support I lent him. I feel, as other libertarians should, betrayed.

Not only have the racist newsletters published under his name (presumably with his consent) dashed the hopes of millions of young libertarians, but his definite irrationalism and racism have put new barriers in front of the libertarian movement just as it was gaining momentum.

New Class Musings

With four classes today, I’m finally in the heart of my schedule. My two philosophy classes are going to be great (especially in terms of providing blogging material). Microeconomics will be interesting (I’m diggin’ the professor whose glasses remind me of a young scholarly Elton John), while Macro will be a struggle to remain conscious, to say nothing about attendance.

Since I’ve been reading Continental Philosophy since 1750 all evening, I’ll just post a good quote of Robert Solomon (the author) paraphrasing Hegel. Followed by some short musings of course.

“Human existence is primordially a matter of mutual recognition, and it’s only through mutual recognition that we are self-aware and strive for the social meaning in our lives.”

This quote sums up a lot of what I’ve been reading lately (Kundera), and, consequently, the way I’ve been thinking about the nature of my understanding of the world and my understanding of social relationships. Whether we like the concept or not, no man is an island. Not because we are physically forced to live with others, but because we are forced to understand ourselves against their definitions of ourselves and themselves. Our social relationships define who we are and, in turn, help us to define ourselves.

Kundera deals with the nature of defining one’s identity in the context of romantic relationships–how we use others to define ourselves and our view of the world. Relationships help solidify the individuals composing the couple by giving them characteristics to define themselves against while also providing another human to validate and acknowledge their existence (a rather comforting prospect).

I’ve got some work to do on the constitution and Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, so that should provide some interesting discussion material.

We’ve been sedating immigrants?

Perusing the first issue of the State Press after class this morning, I stumbled upon an article which discussed the ACLU’s lawsuit to prevent immigration agents from sedating captured illegals without a court order.

“Immigration officials have acknowledged that 56 deportees were given psychotropic drugs during a seven-month period in 2006 and 2007 even though most had no history of mental problems…”

I’m surprised this didn’t get more coverage in the blogosphere. It seems to me that immigration officials (not medically trained) shooting up these people with tranq darts (think Will Ferrell in Old School) like it’s a carnival game should scare even the law-abiding citizens out here.

Here are some interesting questions this article raises for me:

• Are police officers allowed to sedate citizens?
• On what grounds?
• How often does this occur?
• Have any deaths resulted?

I know the police are using tasers and other (supposedly) non-lethal weapons, but it seems like chemical sedation breeches a new level.

New Blog(ger)

I’ve been thinking about creating a blog for a while now, and, thanks to Alan Hogan, I now have one.

You can all blame him for whatever evil comes from this. My over-all goal will be to update this once a day, but I’m not sure how well that will work out (I’m doing a little microblogging over at Twitter now too). Insofar as content is concerned, I’ll pretty much be writing about whatever comes to mind. Mostly commentary on domestic issues like policy and politics, and then interesting things I think about in my Econ and Philosophy classes.

So, go ahead. Book mark this page and we’ll start this wild ride together.