« Home | I Really Hate John McCain » | Gay Parent Dodge » | Four Handed Down, Four New Grants » | Beer Review: Unibroue Trois Pistoles » | Beer Review: Flying Dog Tire Bite » | The Clock is Ticking » | Mr. Popular » | Alan Simpson on Judicial Nominees » | Beer Review: Samuel Adams Summer Ale » | The Big Players in the Roberts Court » 

Monday, May 15, 2006 

How Big is Your Penumbra?

An op-ed in the Harvard Crimson calls for a Constitutional Amendment defining the right of privacy. This isn't a new idea. It pops up every so often. The op-ed points out that Justice Scalia made this point recently...
When he spoke at the Institute of Politics last year, he asserted his judicial principle: if it isn't in the Constitution, it isn'’t constitutional; if we want it in the Constitution, let's add it. I agree. Let's amend the Constitution to include the right to privacy.
Everyone forgets that Article V lets us change the Constitution. It's been done before. We're up to 27 Amendments already. The problem is that people think the amendment process is too slow. Well, it is slow. It's slow for a reason. We should carefully deliberate before we amend the Constitution. But we can still amend it. Our current style of "illegitimate amending" consists of judges writing things into the Constitution. They create things like penumbras of rights in order to justify policy results. This may get you the result that you want, but it is totally ad hoc.


Nino says, "Amend it!"

Here's more from the op-ed...
Nearly every American agrees that there are certain spheres where the government does not belong, and that we have a right to be free from government intrusion in those areas - it's a part of the American ethos. The Constitution hints at it, as the justices recognized in Griswold, but doesn'’t flat-out say it.
I think that an amendment would be a good idea, but that hinges on the language, of course. I may end up hating the language and thinking the amendment itself is horrible. But I have more faith in an amendment with specific language than some screwy penumbra of privacy that Justice Douglas pulled out of wherever back in Griswold. It's not perfect, but it would at least be a marginal improvement.

Wow, you guys have a post for everything. That's why I love your blog.

Thanks for the link.

Well, the three great difficulties, I think are that (1) to propose an amendment guaranteeing privacy would be to concede that there presently is not one, (2) as Robert Bork has pointed out, a broadly-drawn "privacy right to be left alone" stipulation would essentially render virtually all law presumptively invalid, and (3) I don't think it's universally agreed (and certainly I don't agree) that one can get to a right to abortion from a generic right to privacy.

In any event, it must get in line behind my own floated 28th Amendment. ;)

Simon: I definitely agree. I'm just saying that as a generalized idea, I prefer an amendment (some text) to nothing.

The practical difficulties of drafting this amendment are going to be huge. Finding something that will pass is going to be tough. Even if it fails and ends up like the ERA, I think that a long, drawn out debate and discussion about the "rights of privacy" that are in the Constitution or should be in the Constitution would be positive.

I don't know how big of a concession a proposed amendment would be. It seems like people keep trying to hammer this right in general, and the abortion right specifically, into anywhere in the Constitution that they can, whether it's a penumbra, Due Process, or Equal Protection. I think Posner once said that it's a matter of time before someone tries to get the abortion right out of the Takings Clause. It's just blatantly using the Constitution as a means to an end. They care about the result, and it's hard to act intellectually pure when that's all you want.

Bork is right. It would have to be very narrowly written or very cleverly designed (from a legal point of view). The broad language that is found elsewhere in the Constitution will probably not cut it here. Language like that has gotten us into this situation. It would be harder for judges to read other stuff into the language of the new amendment. They can't fall back on that "how can we know the true intent?" cry. We know the intent; we just drafted it.

I don't think that a general right of privacy will give you a right to an abortion either. I think that is one of the specifics that will have to be debated and argued about.

I wouldn't expect any amendment to pass. As stated, I think that the debate itself would be healthy. If anything, it would do much more to legitimize the judicial philosophies of people who don't see a right to an abortion in the Constitution as written. The Left has succeeded in making anyone with an anti-Roe opinion seem extremist. It's a huge sword dangling over the head of many well qualified, potential SCOTUS nominees. This might do a lot to show people that maybe they aren't all a bunch of religious kooks who hate sex. People who are anti-Roe might actually have an intellectual argument against the decision.

I hate the 17th Amendment too.

Andrew: Clause I is really an intriguing piece of writing. The combination of both a legislative and judicial role in this is ingenious. A check and balance... I'm going to think about that for a while (and finish reading the comments in the above Confirm Them post).

And can we include something in there to sever Northern California from the rest of the state?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Jefferson

It's not a serious proposal on my part. I just want a state named after Thomas Jefferson.

I think that California's size is also one of the biggest problems concerning the Ninth Circuit and its operations.

At first blush, §1 troubles me a little, as it seems (as I suppose it would have to be) quite vague; I'd worry about unforeseen consequences, and it seems to effectively codify the Sandra Day O'Connor balancing test: because practically every right impinges on someone else's rights, it's an invitation to nineteen part balancing tests.

§IV is a very interesting idea, although I'm not sure how it would interact with Art.IV §3. Explicitly declaring that this amendment - other than within its own terms - will not change that guarantee would probably be a good idea, lest a future court "get creative" with it.

Two more thoughts about the California severance: first, that would deprive California of a land border with Mexico, which may have volatile and unpredictable implications for the immigation debate. Second, if we figure California's population in the 35m area, transfer ten million people from California to Arizona, presumably that means that - as a ballpark figure - California would cede a third of its 53 seats to Arizona - say fifteen seats. This has a drastic effect on the future of the electoral college if Todd Estes' theory is even marginally correct.

Still an interesting idea, though...And not a bad one to float. Every good idea has to start somewhere before gaining prominence. ;)

Post a Comment
Edit Comment

About me

  • I'm Steve
  • From Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke
  • E-mail Me
My profile