THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 179, June 24, 2002
"Assume a Meditative Stance"
Exclusive to TLE
Let me make this plain up front. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is an idiot in jackboots and a black dress.
Essentially, the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Rehnquist, has decided that you have no right to privacy unless Congress specifically says you do, and only on a case by case basis at that.
It seems that several years ago, a young man in college was accused of a sexual assault. He denied it. The alleged victim denied it - the accusation came from a third party. Obviously, the charge never went anywhere. That should have been the end of it.
But after graduation, this young man applied to the state for a teaching position. The state naturally enough asked his college for information. The school helpfully told it about the unsubstantiated allegation. So guess who didn't get the teaching job.
As it happens, there's a 1974 law on the federal books called the "Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The act gives parents and adult students the right to block the release of any transcripts, including disciplinary records, to any outside party. Generally, the law requires that the parent or student grant permission for any release.
Not any more. Chief Weasel Rehnquist says the law grants "no specific, individually enforceable rights." This low-grade moron thinks that unless a law explicitly states that you have a right to sue, you don't have a right specifically mentioned in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Yep, one more part of the Bill of Rights shredded and tossed away.
Rehnquist and his senile cronies have trashed any hopes of your right to privacy ever being acknowledged again. These Constitutional illiterates never have figured out the Bill of Rights. As best they can figure, no right exists unless it gets called out somewhere, specifically, explicitly, by name. That's how "privacy" got left out of their vocabulary.
I guess they could never quite wrap their tiny, pointed skulls around the idea that "no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house", "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", and "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" were describing - among other things - privacy. Or that "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" carries the logical assumption that people can sue when damaged.
And does it never occur to these judicial cross-dressers (Hey; shouldn't O'Connor and Ginsburg be wearing pants?) that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." means that we don't have to sit around on our butts and hope that some congresscritter will condescend to grant us a basic human right? And no doubt, one subject to "reasonable" infringements anyway.
And to think - these are supposedly well-educated and experienced people. No wonder one of L. Neil Smith's characters observed, "I wanted to be a lawyer, but my intelligence over-qualified me."
I think I'll market toilet paper printed with the Constitution. That's about all it's good for anymore.