• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Obama Salutes Supreme Court's Newest Nonagenarian | Main | RCN Settles Class Action Over Slowing Customer Internet Use »

April 21, 2010



I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect; and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them, and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself.

–Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824.


My concer is whomever the President appoints , they be able to interpret the constitution as it was written by and for americans and get away from the nonsense of trying to interpret it thru the eyes of european nations.
our founding fathers established our nation to get away from european tryanny and to have religous freedoms and the laws established based on the bible.....

Tom M.

To bt and Don: with respect, the President amended his sentence by saying that our constitutional values "promote the notion" of personal privacy and bodily integrity.
However, even if he had not qualified his sentence in that way, we must remember that what the constitution says is not for you or I or President Obama to decide, but for the Court to decide. The Supreme Court majority, in Roe v. Wade, were the ones who professed this right to personal and bodily privacy, and it is to this Supreme Court precedent (not to the President) that we look to know the extent of that right. One can talk about what was written explicitly till he's blue in the face, but that constitutional horse left the barn in 1973.


I agree with BT and totally disagree with MJ... a woman does NOT have the right to her "bodily integrity" when it involves another human life. You have the right to decide if you want to get pregnant or not, but if you do get pregnant, the Constitution does not give you the right to kill that human that is living within you. Your rights end at the beginning of another human's rights. I will support your privacy until it involves an innocent human life.. otherwise known as a baby.

MJ Smith

What enlightened (read intelligent) reading of the Constitution would not derive inherent rights to privacy and bodily integrity? Constitution aside, my right to determine what happens inside my body--including the disposition of developing life--is in no way the State's purview.


"President Barack Obama said today that the Constitution protects women's "privacy and their bodily integrity" and that he wants a Supreme Court nominee who will interpret the Constitution to account for women's rights."

Interesting. My copy of the constitution states that women have the right to vote, not that their, or anyone's, "privacy" and "bodily integrity" is to be protected. I must have the obsolete, pre-January 20, 2009, version.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad