Dodd on the “Privacy Clause of the Constitution”
I can only imagine what it must be like for John Roberts to have his nomination to the Supreme Court in the hands of clowns like Sen. Christopher Dodd, who said today:
The open-ended question for us clearly is what are his views about some of the basic values, the equal protection clause, the privacy clause of the Constitution.
Yup, you read that right. The “privacy clause of the Constitution.”
Sigh.
It seems that every post I do lately is getting filed under “Morons.”
(Via Confirm Them.)
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link.
“Um, Seator Dodd, what does the privacy clause of the constitution actually say, sir?”
“I can’t tell, you. It’s private.”
Comment by ras (f9de13) — 7/31/2005 @ 1:57 pm
The Privacy Clause is just to the right of the penumbra. Now you know.
Comment by Lou (3f4b89) — 7/31/2005 @ 3:04 pm
Yeah. It’s in that emination from the penumbra.
Unfortunately, though, there are not words to it. It’s ethereal, spiritual. But some specially-gifted persons apparently can see it and base substantive work on it.
Comment by ManlyDad (b0f23e) — 7/31/2005 @ 3:44 pm
You said that you filed this under
Democratsmorons, as though Senator Dodd would actually be ashamed or embarrassed about his comments. By now, you ought to know better!Comment by Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 7/31/2005 @ 3:50 pm
The ‘Privacy Clause’?
Maybe next he’ll be talking about the Santa Claus of the Constitution.
Trackback by Sister Toldjah (59ce3a) — 7/31/2005 @ 3:59 pm
I’m surprised you don’t know about the “privacy clause”. It’s there right next to the “separation of church and state” clause.
Comment by Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 7/31/2005 @ 4:35 pm
Dodd’s Bio:
They can’t be too proud.
Comment by SoCalJustice (0cef0a) — 7/31/2005 @ 4:49 pm
It’s simple. You take the third letter of every second word in alternate amendments and rearrange them according to a prime number derived from the fist 16 digits of pi. Thank God people like Senator Dodd are smart enough to figure this stuff out.
Comment by Bryan C (376254) — 7/31/2005 @ 6:44 pm
First we have Senator Schumer’s….
….mother of all freudian slips. Now we have Senator Dodd’s mo…
Trackback by Media Lies (11ee8e) — 7/31/2005 @ 7:56 pm
Senator Dodd, Constitutional Scholar
From Fox News Sunday:
The open-ended question for us clearly is what are his views about some of the basic values, the equal protection clause, the privacy clause of the Constitution.
h/t: Patterico.
…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway (d881ce) — 7/31/2005 @ 8:56 pm
I’d say its the one that mentions “liberty.”
Comment by actus (a5f574) — 7/31/2005 @ 9:42 pm
[...] Sen. Moron, Chris Dodd on the “Privacy Clause of the Constitution”. You read that right. [...]
Pingback by PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » How bad have they corrupted the Constitution? (d881ce) — 7/31/2005 @ 10:23 pm
You know, we should really have a law that every elected representative study, memorize, or at the very least read the Constitution.
Comment by purple_kangaroo (1858dd) — 7/31/2005 @ 11:24 pm
Don’t be a moron, actus.
That’s the Due Process clause, not the Privacy clause.
Comment by Angry Clam (f05866) — 7/31/2005 @ 11:39 pm
“That’s the Due Process clause, not the Privacy clause. ”
Thats the one.
Comment by actus (a5f574) — 8/1/2005 @ 4:55 am
I believe Mr Dodd read “The Privacy Clause” of the Constitution on the back of it,it was written in invisible ink,like the Map of the Free Masons….Only thing I can guess.
Comment by McCloed9 (95f7be) — 8/1/2005 @ 6:27 am
Come on, Angry Clam, you’re splitting hairs.
Surely you right-wingers aren’t going to claim that the Due Process Clause isn’t a privacy clause just because it doesn’t mention privacy, are you?
I mean, liberty, privacy, they’re the same thing. I mean, practically. If you look at it in the proper perspective. And don’t own a dictionary.
Comment by ScottM (eb98c5) — 8/1/2005 @ 7:16 am
The “privacy clause.” Let’s see now, that would be right after the Sanity Clause. No wait, that can’t be. Everybody knows there ain’t no Sanity Clause. [Apologies to the Marx Brothers]
Comment by greg (e086db) — 8/1/2005 @ 7:21 am
Joseph Goebbels was right.
Comment by Fred (a6c672) — 8/1/2005 @ 7:58 am
It’s on the back, in invisible ink, followed immediately by the abortion clause and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Comment by Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 8/1/2005 @ 8:07 am
oops, someone beat me to that one. Good movie, though.
Comment by Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 8/1/2005 @ 8:07 am
As I recall, the great Blackmun could not make up his mind where the privacy clause is, and finally said it didn’t matter.
Comment by eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 8/1/2005 @ 9:31 am
He is trying to avoid the Sanity Calause
Comment by Sabba Hillel (38165a) — 8/1/2005 @ 11:02 am
Right to privacy in the Constitution: the 9-th Amendment (look it up). Then, if you don’t think it contains a right to privacy, ask yourself what rights it might refer to.
The framers of the Constitution, particularly Madison, were against listing rights in the constitution, which is why they are not listed. The reason Madison was against listing rights was that any explicit list would inevitably leave out some, which would put them in danger. As with the other framers, Madison has been proven correct.
Comment by Jonathan Goodman (0947f6) — 8/1/2005 @ 11:07 am
[...] Hat tip to Patterico’s Pontifications for this latest shameless demonstration of stupidity from Dodd: The open-ended question for us clearly is what are his views about some of the basic values, the equal protection clause, the privacy clause of the Constitution. snort [...]
Pingback by rightwingnation.com » Blog Archive » Jesus F*cking Christ on a Popsicle Stick! (cf5a41) — 8/1/2005 @ 1:03 pm
Basically the 9th amendment says just because a right is not listed does not mean it does not exist. No specific right is mentioned.
On the other hand the tenth amendment states that stuff not covered in the constitution is left up to the states to figure out. This could imply that privacy, which is not specifically covered in the constitution, is a state matter.
Comment by D Neff (5ea774) — 8/1/2005 @ 1:34 pm
The
This post by Patterico regarding Senator Chris Dodd’s reference to “the privacy clause of the Constitution” and the attendant comments are a hoot!
Trackback by Huperborea (59ce3a) — 8/1/2005 @ 1:37 pm
Ahhh, D Neff, I’ll stipulate to the deliberate non-enumeration of every possible right, but that does not create a clause. Is the Dog Walking Clause also in the 9th amendment? Dodd goofed, pure and simple, but he did so out of the cloud in which he and his leftist friends live.
Comment by neoconone (2ec2cd) — 8/1/2005 @ 2:54 pm
I work in CT and have met with Dodd a few times. He is a really nice guy and seems to be a good dad. That said he is really as dumb as a stump.
Comment by David (ffef1b) — 8/1/2005 @ 3:17 pm
I think you folks don’t realize just how clever Dodd and Schumer are being and how seriously they are taking their jobs. A Supreme Court Justice is a very important position. It should be filled only by someone who is serious and dedicated. They are devising these questions to determine just how seriously Roberts takes this job. If he can listen to their questions, and then go ahead and answer them, with a straight face and control the urge to fall on the floor laughing, he will go a long way in convincing them he has the depth and maturity to perform appropriately in this position.
Comment by Lew Clark (74924c) — 8/1/2005 @ 5:05 pm
Lew,
That is a good thought, but they should have looked at the wide-view video of Justice Robert’s introduction by the President. If you can keep a straight face at your own 3 year old risking a live nationally televised incident, I don’t think questioning by Senators will stand a chance.
I do not believe anyone has mentioned another possibility. With the SCOTUS recently invoking law from other countries, maybe he was talking about the privacy clause from another country’s constitution ( Freedonia?, Sylvania?, Oz?, Shangri-La?).
Comment by MD in Philly (b3202e) — 8/1/2005 @ 5:50 pm
It is the clause created by Griswold v. Connecticut. Dodd (who was obviously so happy that his home state was mentioned in a SCOTUS opinion) simply elevated the language in the opinion to constitutional text.
Alternatively, Dodd got his copy of the constitution from Dan Rather, and that version does have a Privacy Clause (check the superscript in the 4th and 9th Amendments—it’s a dead giveaway).
Comment by kyle (dca2a1) — 8/1/2005 @ 6:08 pm
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) Announces New….
The Privacy Clause? Hmm. Funny, I don’t remember that part….
Maybe it was written on the back of the Declaration of Independence in invisible ink….
Trackback by OldController (59ce3a) — 8/1/2005 @ 6:21 pm
Well, see, the reson you can’t see it is because that pesky ole Second Amendment – with its clunky. hard-to-understand language – is blocking the view of the Penumbra. If you stand waaaaay over there on the left next to Senator Dodd, you can make it out plain as day.
Comment by Bluesman (641ae7) — 8/2/2005 @ 12:22 am
Rip & Read #132 – 2005-08-02
Here’s what I Ripped and Read in my Podcast today:
Michelle Malkin points to some posts by bloggers who listened to Fox News Sunday talk show over the weekend. I also listened, and heard Chris Dodd tell a whopper. From Patterico’s Pontifications w…
Trackback by Rip & Read Blogger Podcast (59ce3a) — 8/2/2005 @ 5:22 pm
The privacy clause is just after the right for senators to do “Waitress Sandwiches.”
Comment by Senator Ted (3253cb) — 8/2/2005 @ 10:28 pm
As someone noted, it’s the 9th Amendment.
Dodd, of course, did misspeak. But I’ll take that over someone who thinks the state has the right to regulate every aspect of a citizen’s private life.
Like John Roberts.
Comment by Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 8/3/2005 @ 7:55 am
Might be old news here, but in response to Jonathan Goodman’s comments (24), the founding fathers were actually opposed to a bill of rights in general. They thought a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because most state constitutions already contained Bills of Rights. They thought a Bill of Rights would be dangerous because of their serious reservations in unrestrained democracy. They also thought a national Bill of Rights would be impractical because enforcement would depend largely on public opinion.
“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” -Alexander Hamilton
Comment by Harrison Leonard (c04ba9) — 11/16/2005 @ 5:08 pm