Irony, Hypocrisy, and the Republican view of the Constitution

Written by: Alan Willis on Aug 17, 2008 10:24 AM EDT

As much as I love irony, I hate hypocrisy.  Hence, I have a particular love-hate relationship with the Republican views of the Constitution.

I find the irony in the pontifications about Roe v. Wade. In the name of "strict construction" these so-called conservatives (reactionaries, really) decry the Supreme Court's "discovery" of the right to privacy. The right to privacy, they assure us, is not spelled out in the Constitution. They've scoured the Constitution, they assure us, and cannot find that particular right. So, therefore, it must not exist and the Supreme Court must not be allowed to decide cases based on that right.

In their scouring, the "strict construction" adherents apparently missed something I'd like to call the 9th Amendment. Rarely do they discuss the 9th Amendment and for good reason. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." A strict construction of the Constitution then must absolutely admit that there are rights garuanteed to the people of the United States that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution itself. Hence, a "strict construction" argument against the right to privacy based on its not being in the Constitution is, well, internally contradictory.

Moreover, it is quite clear that the logical foundation for a right to privacy lies in the clearly specified protection from unwarranted searches and siezures.

And here is the hypocrisy. While claiming a "strict construction" view to denounce the right to privace established in Griswold v. Connecticut and extended in Roe v. Wade, the same contingent of reactionaries praise the president for taking "necessary" actions to violate the entirety of the 4th Amendment, a fair portion of the 5th and of the 6th, and quite a lot of the 1st Amendments as well.

A last point of hypocrisy, these "Constitutional Conservatives" enjoy accusing the Supreme Court--and other Courts--of legislating from the bench. John McCain said this last night. The founders, it is true, did nto clearly spell out the duties of the "least dangerous banch." They did, however, spell out the duties and responsibilties of the president to execute the laws passed by the Congress. Where have John McCain and the other "Constitutional Conservatives" been every time (and there have been hundred of times!) President Bush has issued a signing statement announcing what section of the laws he will or will not enforce? Every time President Bush issues a non-reviewable order to the beaucracy to act in ways in direct contradiction with their ordained duties (as with the recent contraception equals abortion issue, which clearly violates Griswold)? Where are these supposed strict constructionalists on President Bush's legislating from the Oval Office? (Let's be fair to Bob Barr--this is why he is running on a 3rd party ticket. I don't agree with Barr on much at all, but he does not suffer the hypocrisy of his fellow conservatives, like John McCain).

Tags: