I read a letter to the editor that took the position that a right to privacy doesn’t exist in the Constitution. Is THAT the way the ‘punish women’ crowd is defending the Clown Court’s pending threat? The letter writer suggested I “check it out.” He ALSO suggested that if people want a right to privacy, they had better agitate for a constitutional amendment to get it. Um…if I may…
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.” – Constitution of the United States of America
The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted as a right to privacy pretty much throughout the history of this once-great nation, although it wasn’t always respected as such. So…how can a woman be secure in her person if some state insists on peeking into her sex life, her uterus, and her medical decisions? I think the word “secure” in the Amendment IS “private” and opponents of the Constitution are trying to pick nits, knowing most Americans don’t really know what’s in the Constitution in the first place.
I suppose some stubborn sod might try to argue that “secure” means “safe” but I think THAT falls short, too, since women living in the red, punishment states will absolutely NOT be safe. But the Fourth Amendment isn’t the only support women have. See, the founders really didn’t WANT to include a Bill of Rights because they were concerned that they’d overlook something, somewhere and evil people would take advantage of the oversight. (Enter conservative Republicans…) They addressed their concern with this:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – Constitution of the United States of America.
I would like to point out that both the Fourth and the Ninth Amendment include the words, “shall not” (emphasis, mine). When the conversation is about the Second Amendment, the weakest thinkers in this once-great nation ALL understand that “shall not” is absolute. I wonder why they can’t make the leap to the “shall not” in the Fourth and Ninth as absolute as well. I guess Fox “News” says something different.
I’ll tell you this, I don’t think we need a new amendment. I think we need a new “Supreme” Court.
I’ve been writing ‘MyBaconPress’ for quite some time, now. This is actually my third blog. The first two were undertaken when I thought it possible to reverse course and save this once-great nation. (Yeah, I was younger and still idealistic.) The result was MASSIVE depression as I grasped, over and over again, that there would be no saving, no convincing anyone there was even a need. Twice, it caused me to step away in an effort to protect my own mental health. Now, more and more people see the damage but I’ve come to accept that it’s FAR too late. Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the single most important piece in the destruction of the United States was the dismantling of independent media. For this, we can thank Bill Clinton. Now we suffer under “mogul media” or perhaps “monolith media.” It’s media owned by the one percent, operating for the benefit of the one percent.
My second blog, ‘The Doctrine of Universal Harmony,’ – or ‘Doc Harmony’ for short (last I knew it was still available on the archived web…) – was written during Bush 43’s bumbling years in the White House. I kept hearing the lies dubya was telling in his attempt to sell his illegal invasion of Iraq – and I kept writing about them in an attempt to get people to understand they were being lied to. So, yeah, it was me vs the mogul media. The moguls wanted the war. (War is quite profitable for the people who make the weapons of war – and there’s NEVER a risk their own children are going to be sacrificed for profit…that’s for the “little people.”) So the media was all-in on the war and so most of America went along. There I was, pointing out that the actual goal was Iraq’s oil and had nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th. (Most people don’t even remember that the original name for the invasion was “Operation Iraqi Liberation” – or, O.I.L. Clever, weren’t they? Nonetheless, people figured out the “clever” name game and the operation was quickly re-dubbed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom.’) As you can imagine, the push-back was fierce – at least from the framework of my tiny, little blog.
For the record, I don’t believe or pretend I’m always right but I was dead-on accurate about Iraq. Slowly, over time, one false story after another has been debunked and the idea that Iraqi Invasion II was, at least, a “mistake” is pretty much common knowledge by now. It turns out, the truth takes time. Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on it’s shoes.”
So, as you can imagine, I felt pretty good the other day when I heard 43’s Freudian slip about Iraq. You remember George, right? He’s the “President” who was installed by the Clown Court even though he lost the “election.” He was speaking at the Bush Center, in Texas. He meant to be talking about that putz Putin and he said, “…and the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq – I mean, of Ukraine…” Yeah, so what?
Iraq was still destroyed and destabilized, their leader (for better or worse) remains brutally murdered (under cover of “law,” naturally), and the dead are all still dead. The oil companies made an absolute killing though, didn’t they? Literally. But it’s not like anybody is about to bundle Bush up and haul him off to The Hague for justice. Still, I felt vindicated and it’s always great to be vindicated…
Sometimes, it’s all you get…
One thought on “Twisted Truths…”
The latest madness is a power grab to try and reclaim states rights over federal law. It was settled in the civil war. States rights to set laws on slavery lost. This should not stand if it is enacted. It would be a new slavery for women.
LikeLiked by 1 person