Comments on: Palin Recognizes Inherent Right To Privacy

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:00:13 +0000

And the little mentioned Third Amendment which prevents a State forcibly quartering troops in a persons private residence or upon their property except during a time of invasion, as stipulated by law. Clearly there is the underlying basis of “privacy” that is the basis for this.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:49:05 +0000

Or the Fourth Amendment which is pretty much entirely based upon an individuals inherent right to privacy…as is the Fifth Amendments clause which states that an individual may not be compelled to testify against himself.

By: WAMPcampaign

WAMPcampaign — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:09:23 +0000

Palin threatens 30 years of women’s rights progress..

join the resistance that is taking action: www.saysme.tv/wamp

our psa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs

By: MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel

MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:21:45 +0000

Thanks, jayt. Someday I’ll learn how to link properly…

By: wmd1961

wmd1961 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:23:17 +0000

I was giving her a huge slice of benefit of the doubt. If she had Roe as context there’s no way she should be thinking of the AK constitution. I posted mainly to bring up Ravin, as it is a case dear to passionate drug law reformers like myself and I’d like to see it have more currency. It is also arguably germane in that privacy rights were behind the court’s decision albeit not the same 14th amendment/penumbra right in Griswold and Roe.

BTW, the privacy right in AK can’t just be legislated away, it has to go through a constitutional amendment process, which is why the 1990 vote didn’t overturn Ravin.

By: j.cro

j.cro — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:12:17 +0000

Holy Heavens is this woman just AWFUL.
How can ANYONE take her seriously???

And a little bit off-topic - just the other day I was having a rough time and made a post on my blog devoted to the Muppets to make me feel better. One of the videos I linked to was the very same one Christy has above.
What are the chances??
http://i8pixistix.blogspot.com.....ay_25.html

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:04:32 +0000

She could be talking about the AK Constitution, but that isn’t what Couric asked her about, is it? She asked about an inherent right to privacy re: Roe, which is not an AK issue, per se, but a federal one. Palin may have been talking about it in the context of a state’s right issue, but that isn’t inherent privacy — it’s a legislated right via state action.

They were talking about Roe, which was not decided under the AK Constitution in an AK court, but in the SCOTUS under he US Constitution, Bill of Rights and federal law. Apples and oranges, despite them being all mashed together on Palin’s mind. Furthermore, being a federalist is antithetical to being a state’s rights proponent, which is what the anti-federalists were at our Founding. There is no way that any of her arguments make sense outside a context of not having a firm foundation or grasp of the information at the start of this.

By: wmd1961

wmd1961 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:52:52 +0000

She’s talking about the Alaska Constitution, which has an enumerated right to privacy.

Specifying a privacy right is the reason Ravin v Alaska is still the law in Alaska, notwithstanding a 1990 referendum attempting to overturn the case.

By: VADEM

VADEM — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:35:01 +0000

yes. I think she is terrified of saying the wrong thing and having Schmidt and Davis and grampy yell at her.

It’s SO bad that I’m starting to feel sorry for her. I do feel sorry for her kids-watching their mother just be eviserated by the media. But dontchaknow if grampy had vetted her the media wouldn’t have to.

By: Beerfart Liberal

Beerfart Liberal — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:30:08 +0000

true. you know, i haven’t heard much about tort reform from them in this campaign. doesn’t make it any less important to the righties and may be one of those causes they feel McCain is too lukewarm about for them and Sarah will advance the right (and I do mean right-far right) position. That could be tying her up in knots. But Biden, for example, if he was in her place, I would think would preface that with some kind of explanation “While I generally believe trial lawyers suck, that case was different…..” or use it as just another example of her mav’rickiness. but something’s wrong with her. from the footage i’ve seen of her she’s never been so inarticulate before. not one to offer great insights. but not this inarticulate with stammering and stuttering and all that.