Saturday, March 17, 2012

The Obozo Queerness Re: Families, "Privacy", and Life

We've often mentioned "legal positivism" as a danger to the country (and mankind, as it turns out here). 

Lecturer Obozo, while at U of Chicago, shows us how this is so; he ignores the Declaration to lead his students to a Statist conclusion.

...Once again, constitutional law exams work in a very specific way: the teacher presents an “issue-spotting” question, in which students are asked to provide analysis of a set of facts; the teacher then provides sample answers, so students know if they covered the issues....

...Obama suggests that there is a fundamental constitutional right to clone oneself. The precedent cases “all argue for a broad reading of the right at stake: a right to make decisions regarding childbearing free from government interference—at least absent a government showing that such interference is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

...Obama next examines the state’s interests in preventing cloning. He rejects nearly all of them, but focuses in particular on the state’s interest in “preserving the sanctity of life/family bonds.” The state, says Obama, probably doesn’t have a “compelling interest in preventing what it considers to be the ‘devaluation’ of human life that might result from cloning.” As to the family, Obama states, the state has no ability to restrict “an individual’s fundamental right to bear children or form a family solely on the basis of the state’s abstract judgment of what a family should look like.” The case law may support the first proposition in this sentence – that who bears children is not up to the state. But the second proposition – that forming a family is also not up to the state – is an early argument for gay marriage,...

In the real world, the State has a grave and compelling interest in 'preventing the devaluation of human life...'.  The consequences of such devaluation are ......ahhh.......Statism.  Surprised?  In contrast, the Declaration of Independence implicitly and explicitly calls for the State to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit...."  Notice the word-order here:  'life' is the first-mentioned for a reason; it is the most important of the three.  

...Obama believes that the right to privacy should encompass everything up to and including cloning...

That assumes that Griswold's "right to privacy" is actually a Constitutional finding.  It is not so (pace Charlie Sykes and other libertarian-oriented folks).


Grim said...

I don't know about this one. It seems to me that you'd be in peril of statism on either horn of the dilemma: to the degree that you decide that the State does have a compelling interest that justifies it meddling inside of families, you get a conclusion that is at least as statist. Thus, what we have is not a deadly path and a safe path, but two dangerous paths, either of which must be traveled with great care.

In terms of the question of cloning one's self, what is the evidence that I would treat a clone of myself as less than human? I would think most people would be prone to view such a clone (which would have to begin as a child) as a particularly shining example of humanity -- it's more like them than any other human they know.

Jim said...

Another great "teacher", William Henry Cosby, Jr., once queried, "Why is there air?" and posited that there is air "To blow up volleyballs."

Now this was one of many answers that Prof. Cosby could have suggested, but he chose this particular one to give his "students" something to consider.

The first paragraph you've quoted contains the following key phrase:

the teacher then provides sample answers, so students know if they covered the issues

In my opinion this phrase renders the Breitbart article's and your conclusion weak and unsupported. "Sample" answers do not suggest "true" or "correct" or "this is what I believe" answers in this context. They suggest what legal paths a student, a lawyer, or a judge should consider taking in analyzing, arguing or deciding an issue.

Pretty scary, huh?

Anonymous said...

Protecting life unless it comes to cutting social safety nets to the bone? Priceless.

Dad29 said...

Grim, the answer to your question is also found in the Declaration: "...laws of nature and Nature's God."

Yes, careful.

The concern about cloning causing derogation is not, perhaps, as serious as the concern over abortion (to the same effect.) But certainly cloning will further the derogation of marriage--or what passes for it--as the ground for family formation.