It couldn't possibly pass through all the necessary state legislatures in time for 2008, and possibly not in time for 2012 either. I'm totally mystified.
Usually the discussion of this that I've heard pairs it with another amendment repelling the "native born" requirement for Presidents, the fantasy being a future Bill Clinton vs. Schwarzenegger matchup instead of Bill Clinton vs. W. (Although since Schwarzenegger's star started fading, you don't hear quite as much talk about this.)
5 -- I thought the people behind repealing the "native-born" requirement (hopefully not "repelling" it) were the internationalist crew, that are trying to elect Boutros-Boutros Ghali as U.S. president to user in the black helicopters.
11 cross-posted with 8 obviously. and 7, would that be taken as an admission that there is no such right in the constitution as it now stands? Seems like that might be an argument against pushing for such a 'mendment when you do not have a guarantee (read: "chance in hell") of passing it.
JO, it's a political tool, like the push for a flag-burning amendment, or a gay marriage amendment. The party should talk about it all the time, saying "We believe that there is an unenumerated right to privacy in the Constitution already, but there's some debate about it, particularly from our opponents who don't seem to believe that the American people have a right to privacy. We'd like to clear that up once and for all."
The main purpose of the push would be to force Republicans to explain why they don't believe in a right to privacy. Over and over. Much like Democrats are perennially forced to defend flag-burning.
There doesn't seem to be any interesting backstory here, but how often do I get to link PrisonPlanet?
Joe, I like the idea, but I think Republicans would just say "what they mean is a right to ABORTION. Booga booga!" And, given Roe v. Wade, they'd have a point.
"I don't believe in a right to privacy" is what sunk Bork with the American people. And talking about abortion in the frame of privacy is our strongest political argument in favor of it.
It also reminds people of wiretapping, of corporations tracking our identities, of all sorts of things. The average voter has no clue that "privacy" may or may not mean "abortion rights".
I'm not the first one to think of this, by the way. Lots of others have mentioned it elsewhere. It just seems like such a political slam-dunk to me.
I came out as tentatively in favor of repealing the 22nd months ago, though something or other which I read since then made me rethink it. At the time, I had no idea it had been proposed recently.
There are some procedural amendments that I think it could be good to pass (plans for continuation of government in the event of a disaster and I heard a persuasive argument for changing the line of succession) and I'd support eliminating the native-born requirement. Even so, I just can't get behind actually trying to pass them. I just fear that passing new amendments, even if they're a good idea, will get people thinking that amending the Constitution isn't that big of a deal and unleash a tidal wave of Bad Idea amendments.
On the idea of passing an amendment to specifically enact a right to privacy, two points:
1) It's very important to consider what the actual text of the amendment would be: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to privacy" or something else?
2) As Joe D. correctly says many people have proposed such an amendment. After Will Baude endorsed Dan Savage's proposal, we had the following e-mail exchange (I think it's fine to re-print these e-mails, though perhaps I'm wrong).
Me:
I'm sure you've heard this, bur isn't the worry (among liberals and other democrats, perhaps not your worry) that if such an amendment failed to garner sufficient support it would then be used as evidence that there isn't a right to privacy in the Constitution, and that a sufficient number of Justices might be convinced by this? And this despite the fact that a lack of support to add an amendment is nowhere near the same as support to repeal something which has been read in implicitly?
Will:
Yes, this is the worry but I happen to think it is a silly one. The failure to ratify the ERA, for example, does not seem to have caused the court to give up on its doctrines extending equal protection to women, and the failure to include states in the constitutional amendment banning poll taxes doesn't seem to have stopped the court from extending the rule to states. Plus, I think there is basically no chance that a right-to-privacy amendment wouldn't pass, at least if it stated explicitly that it didn't change the court's abortion jurisprudence.
I found this (plus there are other historical examples I can't remember right now) to be persuasive.
The average voter has no clue that "privacy" may or may not mean "abortion rights".
Just speculation, but I'd imagine the average voter thinks 'Roe' with 'privacy' faster than he thinks 'wiretapping', or at least will as soon as such an amendment would be proposed. Wiretapping & the like are already covered by search & seizure; privacy had to be drawn out of it to cover Griswold.
I'd like to see Constitutional amendments only for procedural things. The last moralizing one we tried went so well we repealed it.
at least if it stated explicitly that it didn't change the court's abortion jurisprudence.
Bad idea, I think. Either you do something that enshrines Roe and all the current carve-outs, which wouldn't pass becaue it enshrines Roe, or you explicitly exclude abortion, which (I'm not a lawyer) I suspect would lead to Roe being overturned because the new amendment states that the right to privacy does not protect abortion.
Becks: If an three amendments passed in the 1910s, one in the 20s, two in the 30s, one in the 50s, two in the 60s, one in the 70s and one in the 90s, while that does show something of a declining trend, I don't see any reason that passing one or even two in 2000s would lead to many more.
And unlike the 22nd, it has no exemption for the current occupant, which seems like something you'd want to put in to reassure people that it's purely a process question (ha). For that matter, it might plausibly say that anyone currently or prevously in the office is still subject to it.
Jack Balkin posted on his blog today he wasn't a big fan of that amendment, but I hardly think that inspired the distinguished gentlemen.
D: If we pass this thing, Clinton can be president again, hooray!
R: If we pass this thing, W can be president again, hooray!
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:31 AM
Four Dems to one Rep.? There's something fishy about this. (They aren't harboring Clinton-reinstoration fantasies, are they?)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:32 AM
Bill Clinton vs. W in 2008. Please please please please please.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:32 AM
It couldn't possibly pass through all the necessary state legislatures in time for 2008, and possibly not in time for 2012 either. I'm totally mystified.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:37 AM
Usually the discussion of this that I've heard pairs it with another amendment repelling the "native born" requirement for Presidents, the fantasy being a future Bill Clinton vs. Schwarzenegger matchup instead of Bill Clinton vs. W. (Although since Schwarzenegger's star started fading, you don't hear quite as much talk about this.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:37 AM
No. More. Legacy. Presidents.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:41 AM
Question: why isn't a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy one of the Democrats' main planks?
Seriously.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:42 AM
"repelling" s/b "repealing" which probably actually s/b "striking" or "eliminating" if one were to be ALB about it
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:42 AM
Amen to #6. Bill Clinton for Emperor!
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:43 AM
Oh goody.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:43 AM
5 -- I thought the people behind repealing the "native-born" requirement (hopefully not "repelling" it) were the internationalist crew, that are trying to elect Boutros-Boutros Ghali as U.S. president to user in the black helicopters.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:44 AM
It looks like it's a year old, so (a) I doubt you could get it on Google News, and (b) I doubt it's very serious.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:44 AM
11 cross-posted with 8 obviously. and 7, would that be taken as an admission that there is no such right in the constitution as it now stands? Seems like that might be an argument against pushing for such a 'mendment when you do not have a guarantee (read: "chance in hell") of passing it.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:47 AM
Oh wait - it isn't 2005 any more, is it?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:48 AM
I'd totally be up for a W.J. Clinton- G.W.Bush deathmatch. Cigars for the winner?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:51 AM
JO, it's a political tool, like the push for a flag-burning amendment, or a gay marriage amendment. The party should talk about it all the time, saying "We believe that there is an unenumerated right to privacy in the Constitution already, but there's some debate about it, particularly from our opponents who don't seem to believe that the American people have a right to privacy. We'd like to clear that up once and for all."
The main purpose of the push would be to force Republicans to explain why they don't believe in a right to privacy. Over and over. Much like Democrats are perennially forced to defend flag-burning.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:56 AM
Geez, two irrelevant posts in a row. I blame the teething baby. I haven't gotten more than two consecutive hours of sleep since Tuesday night.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:57 AM
There doesn't seem to be any interesting backstory here, but how often do I get to link PrisonPlanet?
Joe, I like the idea, but I think Republicans would just say "what they mean is a right to ABORTION. Booga booga!" And, given Roe v. Wade, they'd have a point.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 10:57 AM
"I don't believe in a right to privacy" is what sunk Bork with the American people. And talking about abortion in the frame of privacy is our strongest political argument in favor of it.
It also reminds people of wiretapping, of corporations tracking our identities, of all sorts of things. The average voter has no clue that "privacy" may or may not mean "abortion rights".
I'm not the first one to think of this, by the way. Lots of others have mentioned it elsewhere. It just seems like such a political slam-dunk to me.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:02 AM
I'm in on the privavcy plan.
Apostropher, get the baby drunk.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:14 AM
I'd prefer to get me drunk enough to sleep through the screaming, all in all.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:19 AM
I came out as tentatively in favor of repealing the 22nd months ago, though something or other which I read since then made me rethink it. At the time, I had no idea it had been proposed recently.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:35 AM
There are some procedural amendments that I think it could be good to pass (plans for continuation of government in the event of a disaster and I heard a persuasive argument for changing the line of succession) and I'd support eliminating the native-born requirement. Even so, I just can't get behind actually trying to pass them. I just fear that passing new amendments, even if they're a good idea, will get people thinking that amending the Constitution isn't that big of a deal and unleash a tidal wave of Bad Idea amendments.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:42 AM
I second Weiner above. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let 2008 come down to Bill Clinton v. George W Bush.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:52 AM
On the idea of passing an amendment to specifically enact a right to privacy, two points:
1) It's very important to consider what the actual text of the amendment would be: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right to privacy" or something else?
2) As Joe D. correctly says many people have proposed such an amendment. After Will Baude endorsed Dan Savage's proposal, we had the following e-mail exchange (I think it's fine to re-print these e-mails, though perhaps I'm wrong).
Me:
Will:
I found this (plus there are other historical examples I can't remember right now) to be persuasive.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:54 AM
The average voter has no clue that "privacy" may or may not mean "abortion rights".
Just speculation, but I'd imagine the average voter thinks 'Roe' with 'privacy' faster than he thinks 'wiretapping', or at least will as soon as such an amendment would be proposed. Wiretapping & the like are already covered by search & seizure; privacy had to be drawn out of it to cover Griswold.
I'd like to see Constitutional amendments only for procedural things. The last moralizing one we tried went so well we repealed it.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 11:55 AM
at least if it stated explicitly that it didn't change the court's abortion jurisprudence.
Bad idea, I think. Either you do something that enshrines Roe and all the current carve-outs, which wouldn't pass becaue it enshrines Roe, or you explicitly exclude abortion, which (I'm not a lawyer) I suspect would lead to Roe being overturned because the new amendment states that the right to privacy does not protect abortion.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:03 PM
Becks: If an three amendments passed in the 1910s, one in the 20s, two in the 30s, one in the 50s, two in the 60s, one in the 70s and one in the 90s, while that does show something of a declining trend, I don't see any reason that passing one or even two in 2000s would lead to many more.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:08 PM
anPosted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:10 PM
You have more faith in the American people than I do, W/D.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:15 PM
The resolution was introduced in February, 2005.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH:
Posted by EtUxor | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:16 PM
31, meet 12 and 14.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:26 PM
Not a bad idea at all.
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 12:41 PM
Hitlery will never let this happen. She's not going to be the President's wife again.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02-10-06 1:15 PM
And unlike the 22nd, it has no exemption for the current occupant, which seems like something you'd want to put in to reassure people that it's purely a process question (ha). For that matter, it might plausibly say that anyone currently or prevously in the office is still subject to it.
Posted by DonBoy | Link to this comment | 02-11-06 12:40 PM