[kenberg]

TimG, on Oct 16 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

Obama said that he thought the Constitution supports a right of privacy.

The word privacy does not appear, and the Constitution along with the first ten amendments taken as a whole supports the idea that government should not meddle in private matters.

I believe you are correct that the word "privacy" does not appear. But, to suggest that Obama is making an interpretive leap when he says he thinks the Constitution "supports a right of privacy" is, I think, wrong.

MW online gives as one definition of privacy "freedom from unauthorized intrusion". Article IV of the Constitution starts "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It is true that Obama did not use the exact words of the Constitution, but what the Constitution says is the very definition of "privacy". Obama used one word where the Constitution used seventeen and he might well have said it differently if he was writing a Law Review article, but I don't think it amounts to "interpretation" in the sense that you seem to mean; Obama's use of "privacy" is the literal meaning of the passage in the Constitution.

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

[han]

Thanks for posting the text Josh.

To be honest I don't like either candidate when I watch the debate. Yesterday I watched the part about the negative ads in the campaigns. The talking went like "We should focus on the economy and stop attacking eachother. However, the other candidate has done this and that and that" and then the same idea repeated by the other. I think these debates are really stupid, I was watching with a fairly mild republican who started calling Obama an asshole (sorry for my language but it really is hers). Later she said that she doesn't dislike Obama, it's just that the debates are like watching football, you want your team to win so you start to hate the other candidate. Is this what's going to bring the nation together? (which is what both claim to want)

When I watch the debate I dislike both candidates. Their overdone patriotism, I hate it. Apparently to become the next president you have to say over and over again that the US is the greatest country in the world and its citizens deserve large amounts of wealth. And I hate that both keep distorting the truth to make the voting record of the other look bad.

I liked reading this part:

McCain claims: You voted against immediate care for a failed abortion child.

Obama clarifies: Let me tell you exactly what was voted on and why I voted against it.

McCain doesn't react to this.

When reading this I liked Obama a lot better than when I heard him speak.

[jdonn]

BTW, I read somewhere that despite all the criticism for his 'present' votes, McCain missed a lot more votes than Obama did during the time between when Obama joined the Senate and the Presidential campaigning began. Does anyone know a good way or place to check on that?

[kenberg]

Yes, listening to the candidates can be a bit hard on the stomach. Achieving the American Dream and all that.


One thing that I liked. I hope that the Bill Ayers crap will now get a well-deserved burial. I thought that Obama handled this very well.

Does anyone know how Joe the Plumber fared in Algebra? I am always on the lookout for counter-examples to the claim that you can no longer succeed in life unless you have mastered the quadratic formula.

[gwnn]

Can I just say

Joe the Plumber WTF??

This seems stupider than the whole Wag the Dog movie added together.

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against  abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

BTW, I read somewhere that despite all the criticism for his 'present' votes, McCain missed a lot more votes than Obama did during the time between when Obama joined the Senate and the Presidential campaigning began. Does anyone know a good way or place to check on that?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congres...e/vote-missers/

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

I already can see I will be paying off on a bet favoring McCain, but I think I would be willing to place another bet that Hillary Clinton will not be placed on the Supreme Court in the next four years. I am generally a supporter of both Clintons but judicial temperament is not a phrase that comes to mind when I think of Hillary. Of course it doesn't come to mind when I think of Scalia either.

Are they taking any lines on assassination attempts?

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against  abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student...

Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions.

Admittedly, Roberts was also a student of Tribes. Alito may have been as well. However, Tribe doesn't comment much on Roberts. Nor did he use Tribe as a research assistant.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against  abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student...

Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions.

I'm sure he was an influence, and I'm sure Obama has a host of other influences as well, both legal and extra-legal.

When Obama says that Roe v. Wade was "correctly decided," and then deliberately uses the key word "privacy," a key term on which the decision rested, I think it's fairly clear that he's indicating agreement not merely with the result, but with the rationale.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Oct 17 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against  abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student...

Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions.

I'm sure he was an influence, and I'm sure Obama has a host of other influences as well, both legal and extra-legal.

When Obama says that Roe v. Wade was "correctly decided," and then deliberately uses the key word "privacy," a key term on which the decision rested, I think it's fairly clear that he's indicating agreement not merely with the result, but with the rationale.

Given that a major theme of the book in question has to do with the right to privacy, the two would seem equivalent

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Does anyone know how Joe the Plumber fared in Algebra? I am always on the lookout for counter-examples to the claim that you can no longer succeed in life unless you have mastered the quadratic formula.

Poor Joe, now everyone knows his secrets.

Did McCain really mean that it would be good for education to give returning soldiers jobs as teachers without requiring certification? He must have left out some of what he meant to say.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Oct 16 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Does anyone know how Joe the Plumber fared in Algebra? I am always on the lookout for counter-examples to the claim that you can no longer succeed in life unless you have mastered the quadratic formula.

Poor Joe, now everyone knows his secrets.

Did McCain really mean that it would be good for education to give returning soldiers jobs as teachers without requiring certification? He must have left out some of what he meant to say.

I remember that. McCain certainly sounded weird saying teachers shouldn't need certification. Even other than that comment, they both seem a bit inconsistent on this.

"We need a whole lot more teachers! But let's kick out a bunch of terrible teachers."

How are we going to get more if we get rid of a bunch? And anyway, won't a terrible teacher who chose to be a teacher probably be terrible at other jobs too?

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2008, 04:43 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 17 2008, 12:33 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

It might be interesting to speculate on the response of the moderator and/or the viewers if Obama had said that he believes that this clause [oops, amendment, as noted] of the Constitution prohibits states from passing laws against  abortion. I don't know if this is or is not the basis of his reasoning. I guess someone could ask him.

I'd imagine it's unlikely. He's indicated not just that he's in favor of abortion rights, but also that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision. As a graduate from a top law school, certainly his use of the word "privacy," isn't a random support of his position. It's highly suggestive of his agreement with the Court's reasoning, which didn't rest on "unreasonable search & seizure" basis.

Obama was Lawrence Tribe's star student...

Tribe recently published a book titled "The Invisible Constitution"... I don't think its that great a leap to suggest that Tribes theories on Roe v Wade may have influenced Obama's opinions.

I'm sure he was an influence, and I'm sure Obama has a host of other influences as well, both legal and extra-legal.

When Obama says that Roe v. Wade was "correctly decided," and then deliberately uses the key word "privacy," a key term on which the decision rested, I think it's fairly clear that he's indicating agreement not merely with the result, but with the rationale.

Given that a major theme of the book in question has to do with the right to privacy, the two would seem equivalent

The question I was addressing was specifically whether Obama's Roe v. Wade support was based on a more direct and literal translation of "privacy" = "4th Amendment protection against search & seizure" (see Tim G's earlier post).

My response was that Obama was almost certainly in accord with the Court's more complex vision of "privacy" as set forth in the Roe v. Wade decision.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 16 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Does anyone know how Joe the Plumber fared in Algebra? I am always on the lookout for counter-examples to the claim that you can no longer succeed in life unless you have mastered the quadratic formula.

Poor Joe, now everyone knows his secrets.

Did McCain really mean that it would be good for education to give returning soldiers jobs as teachers without requiring certification? He must have left out some of what he meant to say.

I remember that. McCain certainly sounded weird saying teachers shouldn't need certification. Even other than that comment, they both seem a bit inconsistent on this.

"We need a whole lot more teachers! But let's kick out a bunch of terrible teachers."

How are we going to get more if we get rid of a bunch? And anyway, won't a terrible teacher who chose to be a teacher probably be terrible at other jobs too?

"If you're a vet, you can teach without being certificated" struck me as one of the more bizarre things I heard. I can only hope he meant something other and/or more than he said.

It's difficult to fire bad teachers (at least in California). I think that both candidates would favor changing that (though a large part of it is due to the collective bargaining process, so I'm not sure how they'd intend to legislate around it), but at the same time ensuring that good teachers made more money, thus (hopefully) encouraging more (qualified) people to consider teaching as a career.

My undergrad major was English. I remember being fairly horrified in one required class that was covering what should have been some fairly basic points of grammar. Subject/verb agreement, subject/object distinctions (e.g. who v. whom), transitive/intransitive verbs, etc. Lots of people didn't get a lot of it, which is fine, but most of them didn't care and thought the distinctions were kind of useless too (which is also fine). THEN the professor said, "How many of you want to be English teachers?" and 2/3 of the hands in the room went up. Save us.

[luke warm]

TimG, on Oct 16 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Obama's use of "privacy" is the literal meaning of the passage in the Constitution.

is legal vs. illegal prostitution a privacy issue or a statute issue? how about drug use? i don't think the 4th amendment has anything to do with r v. w else prostitution would be legal on a federal level... and while it's true one could make the argument that prostitution has societal effects, one could similarly make the argument that abortion does

[Lobowolf]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

TimG, on Oct 16 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

Obama's use of "privacy" is the literal meaning of the passage in the Constitution.

is legal vs. illegal prostitution a privacy issue or a statute issue? how about drug use? i don't think the 4th amendment has anything to do with r v. w else prostitution would be legal on a federal level... and while it's true one could make the argument that prostitution has societal effects, one could similarly make the argument that abortion does

I think prostitution could reasonably be considered a privacy issue, in light of Roe v. Wade and related rulings. If a recognized right of privacy exists, it should probably govern most sexual choices made between consenting adults. It's a little bizarre to me that 1) I can legally walk up to a complete stranger and ask her to have sex and she can agree to; and 2) anyone can walk up to me on the street and ask me to give him or her money (and I can give that person money); BUT it's illegal for person A to give person B money for having sex with him/her.

With respect to the societal effects of abortion, one of them appears to be the reduction of crime beginning in the late 90's. For this and other interesting stories such as widespread cheating in sumo wrestling tournmants, see the book "Freakonomics."

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2008, 04:48 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 16 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 02:28 PM, said:

Does anyone know how Joe the Plumber fared in Algebra? I am always on the lookout for counter-examples to the claim that you can no longer succeed in life unless you have mastered the quadratic formula.

Poor Joe, now everyone knows his secrets.

Did McCain really mean that it would be good for education to give returning soldiers jobs as teachers without requiring certification? He must have left out some of what he meant to say.

I remember that. McCain certainly sounded weird saying teachers shouldn't need certification. Even other than that comment, they both seem a bit inconsistent on this.

"We need a whole lot more teachers! But let's kick out a bunch of terrible teachers."

How are we going to get more if we get rid of a bunch? And anyway, won't a terrible teacher who chose to be a teacher probably be terrible at other jobs too?

I admit I am guessing, but probably a suggestion to let someone teach w/o certification is intended to allow for qualified teachers who lack the paperwork to be in the classroom. This is far from the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

I'm not, at least not totally, dumping on the certification process but I think it is a rough sorting mechanism at best. Probably it would be in everyone's interest for the teacher to, over time, obtain certification but there really are a lot of folks out there who could teach a good course who have not, for example, passed a certification exam in pedagogy. To pass the pedagogy exam you need to memorize certain mantras and pretend that you believe them.

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Oct 16 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

I admit I am guessing, but probably a suggestion to let someone teach w/o certification is intended to allow for qualified teachers who lack the paperwork to be in the classroom. This is far from the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

I'm not, at least not totally, dumping on the certification process but I think it is a rough sorting mechanism at best. Probably it would be in everyone's interest for the teacher to, over time, obtain certification but there really are a lot of folks out there who could teach a good course who have not, for example, passed a certification exam in pedagogy. To pass the pedagogy exam you need to memorize certain mantras and pretend that you believe them.

Maybe so. It really came off like, "Let's reward vets by giving them teaching gigs, whether they're qualified or not." Which, I assume, was not what he had in mind. I don't think any of the major candidates is an idiot, so when any of them sounds idiotic, I try to construe meanings for what I heard that are not the ones that intuitively strike me.

Sometimes it's harder than at other times.

[kenberg]

Absolutely!