Donald Trump Proves He's Clueless on Roe v Wade and the Right to Privacy
Cenk Uygur takes us through the Donald's many, many flip-flops over the years where he's taken political positions that were apparently the most convenient at the time, the worst being that although he claims that he's "pro-life" now, he's completely clueless when it comes to the legal basis of Roe v. Wade which made abortion legal in the United States.
TPM has more on his interview with Savannah Guthrie -- Pro-Lifers: Donald Trump Doesn't Understand How Pro-Life Works (VIDEO):
Donald Trump is 100% pro-life. Except when it comes to the basis of Roe v. Wade which made abortion legal in the United States. That he agrees with, 100%.
In an interview with MSNBC's Savannah Guthrie, Trump was asked if he believes there's a right to privacy in the Constitution.
The question is an important one in the abortion debate. Pro-lifers say there absolutely is not a Constitutional right to privacy, which means Roe is a travesty and abortion should once again be permitted to be outlawed in the states that choose to do so. Pro-choicers strenuously disagree, stating that the right to privacy is guaranteed and is extended to a woman's choice to have an abortion or not, the central basis of Roe.
Trump apparently thinks he can split the difference, and appeared to have no understanding of the connection between the view of a right to privacy and the abortion debate.
"I guess there is, I guess there is," Trump said when Guthrie asked if there's a Constitutional right to privacy. "And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?"
Guthrie informed him of the connection to abortion, but Trump seemed surprised that the two went together.
Cenk called Trump a classic carnival barker. I'd say that description is about right. What's astounding is how far off of the cliff the base of the Republican Party has fallen that Trump is actually leading in the polls of their potential presidential primary candidates right now.
on Roe v Wade and the Right to Privacy, period.“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
And Ugly to the bone.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Could the Donald be as dumb or dumber then Palin?
what now, Roadkill-for-hair?
And as the quote calls them 'pro-lifers' w/o the quotes, I'll just remind TPM that anti abortion foes are against choice and privacy between a woman and her doctor, not 'for life.' All of the anti abortion people I've met are pro death penalty and pro war, which makes the term 'pro-lifer' an inaccurate one.
Calling them 'pro-life' w/o quotes uses the language they chose and starts the frame of any debate in their favour. These people are more accurately called Anti Choice. Don't give them a leg up to their imagined superiority over women who are faced with this choice, TPM.
me-oww!
Amen. I'm pro-life. Who the hell isn't? I'm also in favor of choice. How about forced birthers?
anti-woman.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
But but but....being rich means you're more intelligent and insightful than average men?
John Galt told me so!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
This might come as a shock to some of you, but the word "privacy," appears nowhere in the consitution, let alone the explicit phrase "right to privacy."
The only proof that can be logically used for the right to privacy is the 9th Amendment that says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Right to privacy advocates commonly use that to say that privacy is one of those rights retained by the people. The only instance in which the word "private," is even used is the clause that states that the government cannot seize private property without a warrant.
But, unfortunately, the Constitution does not in fact explicity guarantee the right to privacy. If you don't believe me, then please by all means find the text and look for it.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
In the 18th century the word "Privacy" meant THE TOILET! Outhouses were nicknamed "the privy." In the fourth amendment the word "secure," means what we think of today as privacy.
are using the wrong argument. Props for knowing that language of the Founders does not necessarily translate to the 21st Century.
“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”
I know.
Doesn't change the fact that the only way the constitution "guarantees," privacy is through the interpretation of the 9th amendment.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Please explain how the 4th protects the security of "their persons, houses, papers and effects" without the assumption that these things will be kept private?
Convenient how you left out the rest of the ammendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I have never, ever heard this amendment being used to justify the right to privacy for the obvious reason that it guarantees nothing. All it does is protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, and it says that warrants to search and seize our persons, houses, papers and effects, can be given if there is probable cause.
Please point me to whatever Constitutional scholar has used the 4th amendment to justify the right to privacy.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
how is it that persons, houses, papers, and effects can be kept secure without these things being kept private?
Because the government can take them all as long as they have a warrant. Using this amendment for your argument means that the right to privacy is enforced at the permission of the government, and that your right to privacy can be taken away as long as they think it should be.
So if the government were to legislate that abortion is illegal, then by this amendment you would be completely screwed. You would still probably say that the government legislating against abortion is a violation of our right to privacy, but then they'd say "well abortions are illegal now, and now we have a warrant because we have probable cause that you're doing something illegal."
The 9th amendment is the one that constitutional scholars point out when the "right to privacy," debate comes up.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
The 1st, 3rd, 4th,(explicitly) 5th, and 9th are all included in the penumbras.
"Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/381/479/case.html
I'll buy that for a quarter. But do you realize that none of these amendments explicitly guarantee a general "right to privacy"? And he's not using just the 4th Amendment, he's extrapolating an overall tone from them.
If at some moment the government outlawed abortion, the "right to privacy," would no longer pertain to it.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
the framers, who used, what we now call privacy, as the foundation for
the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th did not use the word "privacy?"
the phrase "right to privacy" is not explicitly written in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear in some cases as to when and how we gain that right based upon their interpretation of the Constitution.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
Oh I know. I fully embrace the idea of the right to privacy. I was just merely pointing out that the Constitution does not guarantee it, as most people don't realize that it's not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the document.
And even in the parts that people string together to interpret that right to privacy, using the 4th amendmet is probably the worst idea since that means privacy, or keeping your stuff secure, can only be done at the whim of the government.
I'd like to think that a right is something that can't be taken away.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
in this case abortion, I think the framers were heartbreakingly naive. They were thrilled by The Enlightenment ideals of using reason to govern ourselves instead of obeying tyrannies of a monarch or a religion.
I honestly believe the framers thought they had removed religious dogma from our government forever. Governing by rationality was clearly so superior, I doubt they gave fundamentalist religion a second thought.
When they limited privacy, by acquiring a warrant to do so, I think they believed judges (in fact, all those representing the state) would be "honest actors," not religious inquisitors.
Well we can't throw abortion into the "religious" category entirely. Murder is against the law and morally wrong, as is stealing.
Edit for clarity: There are plenty of laws in our judicial system that can be called "religious." To say that abortion is strictly a religious thing, I think, is overgeneralizing. I'm not a super religious guy. I'm definitely not a fundamentalist Christian. And I've heard many pro-choice people say that they think abortion is wrong.
Killing is killing whether or not it is justified, yes?
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
some do not. That a fertilized egg is equal to a human, capable of being murdered is a belief that is not based on science or law, it is based on what one's religion tells one to believe.
Stealing and murder etc. were illegal before religions began, to call them "religious laws" is not historically accurate.
Right, and that's my point. I'm sure that some cultures viewed abortion as wrong before religion came along. They actually probably thought it was terrible in most cases seeing as how having children was a difficult thing due to infant mortality.
And I didn't call them religious laws, but they are laws that religions buy into as well as secular society.
Admittedly, I wasn't very clear on that response. I apologize.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
And the 4th Amendment is an even worse argument for it, because that basically says the government can violate your right to privacy as long as a warrant is issued.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Is the bill of rights a complete enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people? Despite the portion of the 9th amendment that you quote?
According to the 9th Amendment it isn't, and that's why the 9th amendment is the best argument for the right to privacy.
"The greatest threat to freedom of thought is intellectual cowardice." -George Orwell, 1946
http://christianfearinggodman.blogspot.com
Ignorance, bigotry, racism, hypocrisy, gullibility, faux-Christianity and the IQ and EQ of a leech on the belly of bottom feeding Mississippi River catfish.
Little Sideshow Don back when he had more hair and just as much con.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHYSRF7qBOU
And why would Roe be any different than pretty much everything else in the known universe?
The more this albino rat toupee wearing silver spooned cocksuck@r opens his dumbass mouth the more he hurts Repukes and aids Progressives.
You're magic!
(reference)
even his combover is on the other side. And what's the complexion? He and Boehner must buy bulk bronzer from the same supplier.
Haha, I've been wondering about that too!
he's not really going to be president, he will just play one on teevee.
And that's just for openers!
Donald, the clown.
had the same problem in the Couric interviews. Keeping the "big government," out of THEIR OWN lives (privacy) sounds great to Conservatives. That privacy is the Constitutional underpinning of "choice," makes them twist themselves in knots trying to keep privacy rights away from others.
If life begins at "The Moment of Conception" who determines "The Moment of Conception?"
both the egg and sperm are 'life,' a haploid version of it, but it's human, and it's life.
me-oww!
Time of this clip? 4:20
... and this clown is an arrogant ("excuse me" ...) badly bronzed tool of the Russian Mob.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
...that C&L or any other progressive blog bothers giving this asshole the time of day. I think we all know by now that he has absolutely no intention of running for president. He is playing the media like a violin and by putting him on your blog, you fall for the same bullshit.
Please stop paying any more attention to him. It's just adding to his celebrity which was his only intention from the beginning.
Trump: Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop.
Repeat as necessary.
Carnival barker, snake oil and used car salesman all rolled into one. Say anything to get what he wants. I would mind so much that if he took a principled stand one way or another, but he goes with whatever pops into his head.
This guy is a complete fake.
Democratic Party progressive, Vietnam veteran and proud Union member for 41 years
Aside from Mitt and T-Paw (if he commits), they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one. And Gingrich.
Spinny Liberal
Fascists make me itchy
...the Republicans have got nothing.
But don't tell the Democrats, they'll do their best to blow an advantage.
The Republicans are all talk ... and say nothing that makes sense!!! Never good LEADERSHIP!!!
The proof ..... Both Bushs' were incompetent and a disaster to our country
Comedy is pretty important when times are so dismal. With it all we need that sense of humor to carry us through these rough times.
What we do not need is that pain Trump, relentlessly sounding off like a yutz!!!
Comments are closed on this entry