All 3 GOP candidates for Michigan Att’y Gen’l last evening chimed in on SCOTUS’s decision in Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Good news? None recognized the case by name & 1 had to look it up on his phone. Bad news? All 3 want Griswold scrapped. 1/7

In Griswold, the Court held there is a right to privacy. If you say, “There’s no ‘right of privacy’ in The Constitution,” you do not understand The Constitution. This sentiment is why Alexander Hamilton, one of The Framers, in Federalist 84, opposed a Bill of Rights: 2/7

“...bills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” 3/7

In Griswold several ppl, including a licensed physician, were convicted under CT law of “giving married persons” info & med advice on/prescribing contraconception. 381 U.S. at 479. The few who criticize Griswold/right to privacy fixate on Justice Douglas opinion. 4/7

He found the right in an “emanation of a penumbra” of rights found in the Bill of Rights, but (1) the concept is old. E.g., rights of freedom of speech & press include right to distribute, receive & read. 381 U.S. at 482-83. (2) Justice Goldberg looked to the 9th Amendment: 5/7

The enumeration in the Const’n, of certain rts, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Justice Goldberg sd (a) this includes privacy & (b) SCOTUS never held Bill of Rts or 14th Amend protect only rts Const’n specifically names. 381 U.S. 487 n.1. 6/7

No right is more fundamental than the right to be left alone by gov’t. This iteration of the GOP is only about power. I’m Mark Small. I’m pro-choice, pro environment & GOP candidate for Indiana House District 86. I approve of this blog. Hell, I wrote it. 7/7