, , ,

Talk about getting hoist with your own xenophobia.

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4 (March 7, 2008)

[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]

   Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says “that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means “the right to be left alone”. [laughter] Right. This is anarchy…

   …[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of – conversations. It’s something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not….[as practice now]…This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people’s privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It’s a question for me now. It’s a question for me. That’s what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution – you reduce democracy.

“…There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means…” That’s what Nino said.

Senator Brian Nieves (r) filed SB 676 yesterday. The bill summary:

Current Bill Summary

SB 676 – This act creates the Civil Liberties Defense Act. This act mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.

The act makes contracts that choose to apply a foreign law to contractual disputes or to have disputes settled in another country void and unenforceable in Missouri, if the foreign law would not grant the parties to the contract the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.

In some cases, a court may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters, where the court believes there is a more appropriate forum for the dispute. This act requires that the court hear the case in Missouri, if a state resident brings the case and if the court finds that not hearing the case in Missouri violates or would likely violate the rights of the person who brought the case.

The act does not apply to a business entity that subjects itself to a foreign law in a jurisdiction outside the United States. The act does not authorize courts to adjudicate religious matters.

This act is similar to SB 308 (2011).

There’s an interesting detail in the actual bill language [pdf]:

….The Missouri general assembly finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy….

[emphasis added]

Right of privacy. That’s a very interesting choice of phrase.

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

…The Connecticut statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights…

[emphasis added]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973):

….State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy….

[emphasis added]

Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003):

….It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention….

Is SB 676 an endorsement of all those penumbras and emanations? Just asking.