The Liberal Patriot

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), Stupid Like a Fox, Huh?

J.G. Schwam - January 18, 2006

The title phrase stupid like a fox came out of recent private conversation in which a supporter of his attempted to justify Brownback’s logic behind his statement after the second day of the Alito hearings; the constitution does not say abortion should be legal so it should not be.

In October 2005 at the hearing of withdrawn Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers Brownback had a similar statement made to Brit Hume of Fox News, HUME: When you say you don't find a right to privacy, you're talking about this sort of all-purpose, one-size-fits-all right to privacy that was detected by the court in Griswold?

BROWNBACK: Absolutely. I mean, where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy that you can determine is a constitutional right to get an abortion? Where is that anywhere in the Constitution? It's not there.

Stupid like a fox, what the heck does that mean? If the statement made any sense at all it would redefine ludicrous.

So just in case Senator Brownback needs a lesson in what the Constitution does or does not say; I’ll remind him what else the constitution does not say is legal or illegal.

The Constitution does not say murder is expressly illegal. Does this mean that Americans do not have the right not to be murdered? The Constitution does not say they don’t. So does this mean that we should strike down all laws that criminalize murder Senator Brownback?

The Constitution does not say any drug is illicit or illegal. So does the lack of a specific statement mentioning illegal drugs in the constitution make a case for the overturn of the Harrison Act Senator Brownback? It should with your logic.

The first amendment does say that the people have right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances. Does this mean that the established prohibition against suing the government for the wrongful death of soldiers in time war should be found unconstitutional? Absurd right, the Constitution does not say it is not illegal nor should such a concept not fall within the right of a citizen do so.

The 8^th amendment says: nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Do you think this might mean thou shall not torture? Under what logic would torture not be considered cruel, Senator Brownback?

The Constitution does not say that citizens overseas are not bound by US law. The 3^rd Amendment says; No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner.

One could argue that since it doesn’t say soldiers or citizens overseas are not bound by the Constitution it could be that they are. Under your logic since it doesn’t say it, couldn’t this mean Citizens overseas could be bound the Constitution, right? Well then how about occupying Iraq or the palaces of the Green Zone? Shouldn’t the fact that there are soldiers in Saddam Hussein’s house imply a violation the 3^rd Amendment under your argument?

The Constitution does not say anything about bestiality, sodomy, rape, pedophilia, larceny or burglary either. Does this mean that since the onstitution does not prohibit or condone these acts that we should say they should not be illegal?

Are all of the above arguments ridiculous? Of course, on a prima fascia level they all are. Or under Senator Brown backs logic perhaps, we should re-think all of the above laws since the constitution does not mention any of them specifically.

Is this whole conversation stupid like a fox? How would I know? I’ve never met a stupid fox until perhaps Senator Brownback was likened to one.

Back to Liberal Patriot Main Page