Is therea true expectation of a right to privacy in America?

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I, for one, would be in favor of an amendment that would codify a true "right to privacy" for citizens.

I would favor such an amendment as well, but it shouldn't be necessary since it's clearly the "intent" of the 9th.

Good point, but I fear the 9th amendment has all but been abandoned, due to its nebulous definition.

But that was the INTENT of the 9th Amendment. All of these alleged conservatives/originalists crow about an unambiguous right codified by the 2nd amendment (despite the fact that it implies a circumscribed rationale), yet the clear meaning of the 9th is that government's power is limited while that of the individual is inherently global.

You have to dance to find totality in the 2nd but it seems like common sense, history, and mastery of the English language makes it easy to see some of the fundamental rights the Constitution is designed to guarantee . . . without explicitly stating all of them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Yep, you guys are in that 51% of Proud Apologists that ignores the Foundation from which the Country was born.

Yes, being critical of Dave's "contributions" to P&N equates to being a traitor to the nation

Wow, Normally this love is reserved for the President.

Thanks kindly :thumbsup:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
...alleged "Originalists" say they know exactly what the writers of Constitution meant but curiously they always warp language to meet their ideological ends.

true, case in point:

For instance, IMO it seems the preface in the 2nd Amendment indicates a right to bear arms exists explicitly for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State (under the auspices of a well regulated Militia)...

if you really think that you just lost a lot of points in my book. But sorry to get off topic.

The states' rights reading [of the Second Amendment] puts great weight on the word "militia," but this word appears only in the Amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people," not the "states." As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means "states," it says so. Thus, as noted above, "the people" at the core of the Second Amendment are the same "people" at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citizens. - Prof. Akil Reed Amar of Yale Law School - 1991

[The Second Amendment] looks to an ultimate reliance on the common citizen who has a right to keep and bear arms rather than only to some standing army, or only to some other politically separated, defined, and detached armed cadre, as an essential source of security of a free state. In relating these propositions within one amendment, moreover, it does not disparage, much less does it subordinate "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." To the contrary, it expressly embraces that right and indeed it erects the very scaffolding of a free state upon that guarantee. It derives its definition of a well-regulated Militia in just this way for a "free State:" The Militia to be well regulated is a Militia to be drawn from just such people (i.e. people with a right to keep and bear arms) rather than from some other source (i.e. from people without rights to keep and bear arms).- Duke Prof. William Van Alstyne - 1994

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: misle
I peruse P&N on occasion and I would consider myself to be a casual reader of this forum, and I must agree with Genx87's thoughts. I know that I cannot seriously consider anything that dmcowen674 posts.

I don't see how you can seriously consider anything Genx87 says either. He's the yin to dmcowen's yang. Complementary extreme caricatures.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I don't see how you can seriously consider anything Genx87 says either. He's the yin to dmcowen's yang. Complementary extreme caricatures.

Nah, I disagree completely. At least Genx87 doesn't bore us with the daily stream of gloom and doom / sky is falling threads like Dave does. And we don't have to hear about how [insert political party here] are responsible for everything from the moon not being full to the toilet plugging up.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
So, do we as Americans have a right to privacy or an expectation of it at all?

Try calling local law enforcement to let 'em know you're going to fire up the bong for the next few hours, in the privacy of your home, and you'd rather not be hassled by The Man over your private choice of recreational activities. Tell us all how that works out.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
So, do we as Americans have a right to privacy or an expectation of it at all?

Try calling local law enforcement to let 'em know you're going to fire up the bong for the next few hours, in the privacy of your home, and you'd rather not be hassled by The Man over your private choice of recreational activities. Tell us all how that works out.

Privacy only applies when liberals say it does.

Guy in Texas goes hunting with his rifle, libs get into a frenzy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
So, do we as Americans have a right to privacy or an expectation of it at all?

Try calling local law enforcement to let 'em know you're going to fire up the bong for the next few hours, in the privacy of your home, and you'd rather not be hassled by The Man over your private choice of recreational activities. Tell us all how that works out.

Privacy only applies when liberals say it does.

Guy in Texas goes hunting with his rifle, libs get into a frenzy.

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The fact is that virtually no one in this country believes in freedom or liberty or privacy...they care about THEIR rights and freedom and privacy, on the issues THEY care about. These are totally seperate things, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "pro-freedom" on certain issues. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing (I never thought I'd think of an idea THAT way), because freedom is a concept, not a set of particular freedoms.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The fact is that virtually no one in this country believes in freedom or liberty or privacy...they care about THEIR rights and freedom and privacy, on the issues THEY care about. These are totally seperate things, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "pro-freedom" on certain issues. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing (I never thought I'd think of an idea THAT way), because freedom is a concept, not a set of particular freedoms.

Democrats voted in full backing of the patriot act.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The fact is that virtually no one in this country believes in freedom or liberty or privacy...they care about THEIR rights and freedom and privacy, on the issues THEY care about. These are totally seperate things, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "pro-freedom" on certain issues. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing (I never thought I'd think of an idea THAT way), because freedom is a concept, not a set of particular freedoms.

Democrats voted in full backing of the patriot act.

Did I say they didn't?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The fact is that virtually no one in this country believes in freedom or liberty or privacy...they care about THEIR rights and freedom and privacy, on the issues THEY care about. These are totally seperate things, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "pro-freedom" on certain issues. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing (I never thought I'd think of an idea THAT way), because freedom is a concept, not a set of particular freedoms.

Democrats voted in full backing of the patriot act.

Did I say they didn't?

Do you consider them "righties"?

 

[piasabird]

I think there are some expectations of privacy in America. I can quote some laws that seem to support that type of concept. You have to have a warrant to search a house. The ownership of property is also a foundation of the concept of privacy. The law protects the Client Lawyer privlidge which is also key to the right to privacy. Not all rights are spelled out in black and white. Some gays use the rights to privacy to protect themselves from unlawful invasion of their home and using their sexual acts or conduct against them in legal matters. So there are plenty of evidences of the right to privacy that have been upheld in different court cases in different ways.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

For instance, IMO it seems the preface in the 2nd Amendment indicates a right to bear arms exists explicitly for the purpose of maintaining the security of the State (under the auspices of a well regulated Militia)...

if you really think that you just lost a lot of points in my book. But sorry to get off topic.
-----




I think you are conflating my ideological views with my practical views and impression of the Constitution.

If you follow the doctrine of "original meaning", then the text of the Constitution guarantees a circumscribed right to keep and bear arms (for individuals). Personally, I like that reading b/c the world would have fewer guns.

If you follow the doctrine of "original intent", then you do a little dance and say the words explicitly detailing the rationale for the 2nd Amendment aren't important b/c clearly the Founding Fathers intended to guarantee a right to keep and bear arms without prohibition or pre-condition. Personally, I don't like that reading b/c I think guns are net negative . . . but I'm willing to buy the argument b/c fundamentally the Bill of Rights broadly protects individual rights.

In essence, I don't warp the meaning or intent of the Bill of Rights. I acknowledge that it enumerates a right that I think is dangerous and anachronistic (2nd). Personally, I think it sux but such is life.

Naturally, I'm quite happy the 9th serves to protect me from the arseholes that would infringe upon my rights by giving the government (any level) the power to decide on whims what the bounds of my personal liberty entail.

But unlike my right of center (and left of center) brethren . . . the underlying meaning/intent of a given Amendment isn't dependent on my political, social, or religious views.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
So, do we as Americans have a right to privacy or an expectation of it at all?

Try calling local law enforcement to let 'em know you're going to fire up the bong for the next few hours, in the privacy of your home, and you'd rather not be hassled by The Man over your private choice of recreational activities. Tell us all how that works out.

Privacy only applies when liberals say it does.

Guy in Texas goes hunting with his rifle, libs get into a frenzy.

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The fact is that virtually no one in this country believes in freedom or liberty or privacy...they care about THEIR rights and freedom and privacy, on the issues THEY care about. These are totally seperate things, I'd go so far as to say that you can't be "pro-freedom" on certain issues. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing (I never thought I'd think of an idea THAT way), because freedom is a concept, not a set of particular freedoms.

This is the point I was trying to make with my original post - "privacy" is a vague, imprecise notion which means wildly different things to different people. For that reason, I don't accept the asinine notion that there's any 'right to privacy' in the Constitution - it's just too vague a concept which the Founders likely could not have defined at the time of the drafting, and which we still can't define clearly today. Those rights the Founders considered important were (more or less) clearly delineated in the Bill of Rights, and I don't put much stock in these 'read between the lines' interpretation theories. To give another example aside from my private drug use example above, why is it illegal in 49 of the 50 states for adults to exchange sexual services for money? Where's the Supreme Court protection for that?

 

[hardwareguru84]

What I don't get is, there's all this arguement over the "right to privacy" becuase it isn't spelled out. I don't see the "right to marriage" or similar arguments anywhere in there. Ahh, but wait, there is the protection of life, liberty, and property, which one could easily argue derives such protections. I've heard that arguement brought up several times and would like to hear what the other side says to this issue. However, has anyone even begun to fathom what would happen if the SCOTUS/government suddenly decided that we have no right to privacy? That's a frightening thought if you ask me...

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider
So, do we as Americans have a right to privacy or an expectation of it at all?

Try calling local law enforcement to let 'em know you're going to fire up the bong for the next few hours, in the privacy of your home, and you'd rather not be hassled by The Man over your private choice of recreational activities. Tell us all how that works out.

Privacy only applies when liberals say it does.

Guy in Texas goes hunting with his rifle, libs get into a frenzy.

Doesn't that work the other way around too? Righties give the Patriot Act, torture, holding Americans without trial, etc, a pass and foam at the mouth when someone suggests a restriction on gun rights.

The patriot act doesn't have anything to do with torture or holding Americans without trial.

And you're just blind if you think there aren't plenty of pro-gun people who have problems with an overly intrusive government and parts of the patriot act.

 

[Helenihi]

I don't see how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" requires any "dancing" to interpret as a right to bear arms. Seems to spell it out quite clearly. It doens't matter what the rationale listed afterwards says, because it doesn't limit the right given, it just says it was a basis for the right.


And even if you interpret the second as clause as being necessary to the first, the militia are the PEOPLE, and still exist today. It doesn't mean a national guard, as there was no national guard when the constituion was written.


And how the hell do you think you can call originalism inconstistent for not supporting the 9th amendment? Originalists are the ONLY people who still think it has some meaning. I think you don't have a clue what originalism is and just think its a nice substitute for conservative.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
The constitution explicitly protects citizens from Search and Seizure. Therefore yes americans have an expectation and a right to privacy "in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."

See the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Check out the 9th and 10th amendments.

9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people:
(Brief translation for those who don't like the Constitution or freedom: Just because a right of the people is not explicitly mentioned in the Constititution should not be taken as evidence that such a right is not protected by the Constititution.) (Hint: The Constitution does not mention the United Nations.)

10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(Brief translation for those who don't like the Constitution or freedom: If not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution the rights of the people are preserved although the people may restrict their rights at the state level.) (Notice that no where is it mentioned that the rights of the people of the United States of America can be restricted by the United Nations or any other country.)

Thus, the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution unless we elect to amend the Constitution or enter a treaty which supersedes the Constitution. This is how President Clinton tried to restrict our rights. Al Gore would have signed the treaty but for the fact that Governor Bush defeated him, despite all the illegal tactics to change the outcome of the election by the Democrats. President Bush then tore up the unsigned treaty.