Palin: States have the right to violate citizens' Constitutional rights

[krkaufman]

This is effectively what Palin said in her 'CBS News - Presidential Questions' session, on Roe v Wade, today.

Palin was literally saved by the bell, it appears, with CBS ending the segment with Palin unable to cite a single other Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade -- let alone one with which she might take issue.

But it should also be noted that Palin again demonstrated her inability for complex, abstract thought... responding to Katie Couric one moment that she believes that the US Constitution *does* have an inherent right to privacy -- which Couric emphasizes is at the core of the Roe v Wade decision -- and then saying in the next moment that abortion rights should be left up to the states. So the states should have the right to violate their citizens' Constitutional rights? Or maybe Palin just doesn't understand the function of the Constitution?

I doubt this incoherence will be much noticed, though, given Palin's epic failure on the "other decisions" question.

[LiberalFighter]

1. The Constitution interferes with their religion.

[valerief]

2. Yeah, once they secede! Remember, she was a member of the AIP.

[Ashy Larry]

3. "Here in Alaska we have our own constitution ya know?"

Gwen Ifill should ask her to explain the Supremacy Clause.

[krkaufman]

11. To which she would respond ...

... that the KKK isn't welcome in these parts, any more.

[jberryhill]

13. Actually, the AK Constitution has an express privacy provision...

...broader than federal privacy. Supremacy sets a floor not a ceiling.

That's why Palin legally smoked pot in Alaska. The AK court had ruled that going after home consumption of home grown marijuana would necessarily violate privacy under the AK constitution.

[Ashy Larry]

16. So, even if Roe v. Wade was overturned,

Alaska would need to amend their constitution if they wanted to ban abortions?

She didn't smoke legally because it was still a federal crime. Well, possession is anyway. Maybe she just took shotguns.

[jberryhill]

19. Not necessarily...

...it depends on what theory one wants to use to approach the choice issue, and what judges you have.

Roe v. Wade follows a line of privacy decisions - that this is a medical decisionmaking question or family planning decision of a type which prior decisions had to some extent touched upon as "private".

Alternatively, one could take it up as a liberty interest - self determination and autonomy.

There are people who are pro-choice, but would have preferred a different foundation under the result of Roe v. Wade. But what a lot of folks don't realize, and what Biden sketched out, is that the whole "life begins at conception" mantra reflects a misunderstanding of Roe v. Wade in the first place. The decision reflects a progressive tilt of balance between a woman's right of privacy on the one hand, and the state's interest in protecting life on the other hand. It's not an either-or proposition, even in the decision itself.

So what the pro-lifers attack is the "right to privacy" as a non-enumerated "discovered" right stitched together from general notions of freedom of conscience in the First and freedom from state invasion in the Fourth, etc. The code words there are things like "strict construction" and "original intent". Interestingly, in the clip, Biden jumps to a 14th Amendment liberty interest, and not a 14th Amendment due process interest (which is the conduit through which the Bill of Rights is understood to apply to the states).

The other line of attack is on the arbitrariness of the trimester structure in Roe. The relevant code words there are "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism", even though in other contexts you'll find just as much arbitrariness in celebrated "conservative" decisions. Ultimately, yes, judicial reasoning may involve line drawing, and lines get drawn where they may.

But in simple answer to your question - yes, in the absence of Roe, various restrictions on abortion could be unconstitutional under various state constitutions. State constitutions are, of course, more easily amended.

[Toucano]

4. Yes, she believes that the majority can take away rights if it suits them.

You could take away the vote for women in Texas, for example, if the the majority of Texans agree that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The Constitution guards agains tyranny of the majority, but Palin will have ta get back ta ya about that.

[racaulk]

5. 14th Amendment?

:shrug:

[usregimechange]

6. Or the 15th not sure, make the federal constitution applicable to the states

[usregimechange]

7. Good point, K&R!

[msallied]

8. You nailed it. If anyone still needed proof to her stupidity, then look no further.

[usregimechange]

9. kick

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. good find.

[krkaufman]

12. Thanks. Hope it's picked-up by the pundits that matter.

(Though I doubt it, given all the chatter over the next 48 hours will be about tomorrow night's debate.)

[LiberadorHugo]

14. "I like coffee, I like tea...

But I don't like nigras, nosiree." -- Palin supporters

[jberryhill]

15. There's another way to interpret that - but it assumes Palin has a brain

States can provide greater rights than the US Constitution.

On the particular issue of privacy, the Alaska Constitution provides greater privacy than the federal one.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?20+Alaska+L.+Rev.+29

Article I, section 22 states that the "right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed."

[krkaufman]

17. Right. I was wishing that Palin would have followed-up ...

... with a question on the federal governments limiting of California's more stringent environmental regulations, Bush Admin's fighting against one company's choice to test all beef for mad cow, etc.

[jberryhill]

21. Heh....

You really want to probe the full "judicial philosophy of Sarah Palin"?

It's kind of like wondering what a head-on crash between two tractor trailers might look like. Sort of fascinating yet horrifying at the same time.

While you're at it, you might as well ask her where she stands on the extent to which one may rely on dormant commerce clause power as a pre-emption doctrine.

"Ya know, I've never really believed that commerce power should be dormant. We should be looking to promote commerce, or I mean, states should be encouraging their constituents in those parts of this country where the states are to take every opportunity to make sure their commerce isn't dormant, but is used to create jobs, new energy, and new ideas. But I wouldn't judge them for those choices they make in their commercial relationships, or how active or dormant they might want to be."

[krkaufman]

22. chuckle.

(also, I just noticed I said "Palin would have followed up", rather than Couric.) Basically, no, there's no there... there. My orig issue isn't that Palin doesn't *know* the law, but that she's not even able to recognize the most basic logical contradictions.

p.s. What language was that you were speaking in your post?

[jberryhill]

23. Palinese

I speak most languages, all of them, every one is put in front of me.

But, contradictions? Not as a position of the campaign, but personally I thought it was more important that they were fighting those Sandy Misters in Nicaragga, than whether they were pronouncin' their words right.

(yeah, sure, as if she'd even know who the Contras were...)

[Poseidan]

18. freak-shows garner media attention

Every second they focus on Palin's ridiculous interviews, they are not focusing on:

torture
domestic spying
the Iraq war
the economy
stolen elections
Nazi-caliber propaganda
outing of Valerie Plame
firing of U.S. attorneys
9/11
add more here
add more here
add more here
add more here
add more here
add more here
add more here
add more here

[BlooInBloo]

20. Rather than going through the additional complication, it suffices to simply note...

That Palin just ripped to shreads 30 years of conservative argumentation.

I wish I wasn't nearly the only one who reads Digby, so I wouldn't have to repeat everything she/they say.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-just-ignorant-but-destructive-by.html

[victoryparty]

24. she is so weak on so many levels...

... that I am dumbfounded to this day that McCain actually picked her. Sure, there was the bounce from the "surprise," but she sure doesn't seem to be handling the limelight very well. In fact, she kind of seems to resent it.

[TheDonkey]

25. I've learned "states rights" is now just a filler for any question about law rethugs can't handle

leave it up to the states to decide!

[No Elephants]

26. When states regulated it, they forbade giving married couples even advice about birth control. It's

odd. Pubs are all for states' "rights," like segregation, until a state does something they don't like, like giving marriage licenses to same gender couples.