Prosecute the torture.

July 26, 2005

Santorum steps in it again

I saw this over at Eschaton:
Did little Ricky just say on Aaron Brown what I thought he said? That Griswold was wrongly decided, and that therefore the state has the right to regulate the use of birth control by married couples?

If we had a decent press, the first question little Ricky would face at his next press availability would be - have you ever used any form of birth control of any kind?
Here's the transcript from CNN:
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?

SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...

BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?

SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...

BROWN: For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.

BROWN: The state of Connecticut had the right to ban birth control for a married couple.

SANTORUM: I think they were wrong. It was a bad law.

BROWN: But they had the right.

SANTORUM: They had the right. They had the right...

BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?

SANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And...

BROWN: But they had the right to make.

SANTORUM: They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...

BROWN: OK.

SANTORUM: ... but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.

That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.
There it is. For being such a polished politician, Rick is certainly less than crystal clear here. However there are a couple of things we can make out. It seems that Lil Ricky thinks there is a right to privacy in the Constitution - just not as it's described in Roe v Wade.
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?

SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...

BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?

SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...
I'm guessing that last part's a stumble on Rick's part. Not even he would say that there's a right to an unreasonable search and seizure. So he believes in the Fourth Amendment (and that's a relief!) , but not in the right to privacy as outlined in Roe.

But then we get to Griswold v Connecticut. And here we get some more wisdom from Senator Man-on-Dog. First he says that Griswold was wrongly decided. Secondly that while the law that Griswold struck down was "a bad law," the State of Connecticut still had the right to ban contraception for married couples. According to Griswold, here's the Statute in question. It is section 53-32 of the General Statutes of Connect (1958 rev.):
Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.
So while Rick thinks that's a bad law, he still thinks that the State of Connecticut had the right to make it. But it's the solution to the problem that Rick doesn't like.

Here's Santorum's contact info for his Pittsburgh Office:
100 West Station Square Drive
Landmarks Building, Suite 250
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Main: 412-562-0533
Fax: 412-562-4313
And his e-mail form page. I will be checking in on the good Senator on this.

5 comments:

AndrewL said...

You know, I REALLY want to ask lil Ricky whether he took the oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. [empasis added]


Then we should question him why he thinks that the Government has rights and the source of those rights, and what he thinks the 9th and 10th Amendments mean.

Actually, I think that we should ask this of every elected federal official and every candidate for federal office.

dayvoe said...

I used the e-mail form and sent this to the Senator this morning:
=====
Senator;

I read on-line that you believe that the Griswold decision (the decision denying the right of States to ban the sale of birth control even to married couples) was decided incorrectly. I've also read on-line that you don't believe that there are Constitutional guarantees to privacy.

Assuming both these are true, I have to ask you whether 1) you have ever used birth control (either with your wife or outside of your marriage) and 2) whether you believe that any married couple in American should be able to purchase birthcontrol?
=====
I'll let you know if I get any response.

AndrewL said...

A follow-up (full post) to this comment that I made on Freedom's Gate made the Front Page on Freedom Democrats.

Ol' Froth said...

WHen are these clowns going to get it that the Constitution puts limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people??

AndrewL said...

When THE PEOPLE ("conservatives" and "progressives" alike) remember that and stop trying to use the Federal government (well beyond its mandate) to cure all the "ills" that they percieve.