- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,809
- Reaction score
- 764
- Location
- Central Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
mpg said:Yes, obviously, but the SCOTUS insists that there are additional Constitutional rights to privacy that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. That's where judicial activists and conservatives disagree.
tryreading said:Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Amendment V
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
star2589 said:i'd say that all those amendments imply a right to privacy.
I'm assuming this post is indirectly about roe vs wade. though I think we do have a right to privacy, I dont see what abortion has to do with that.
tryreading said:Abortion will probably consume it, as it has already been mentioned twice and implied once in the first five posts.
You're right. Judicial activism is less common amongst conservatives, but it does happen from time to time. Instead of "conservatives", I should've said "those who believe in judicial restraint". In this particular case, you have to be a judicial activist to believe that there's a Constitutional right to privacy aside from the rights to privacy that are in the Constitution. Removing that additional right would be an example of judicial restraint.tryreading said:So maybe the new appointees who President Bush is hoping will be conservative judicial activists will remove those 'additional' rights? Your wording implies that there are no conservative activist judges.
steen said:The right to privacy includes you not being forced to give blood against your will. It includes you not being forced to give up your extra kidney against your will, even if it would save another life.
And it goes further. It gives you the right to control the privacy of your dead relative's body, so that you get to decide if organs etc will be donated or burried/cremated.
aquapub said:Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.
aquapub said:Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.
tryreading said:Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Amendment V
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
aquapub said:Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.
kandahar said:It was also a protection of the individual against the federal government.
RightatNYU said:Not to mention that the 14th amendment then took those protections for the individual from the federal government and extended them to apply them to the state/local governments.
tryreading said:Those protections were already applied to the states by Article VI.
Taking my bodily resources against my will most certainyl would be an unreasonable seizure of my body.alphamale said:Does not guarantee a general right to privacy, but rather precludes warrantless searches in pursuit of finding criminal evidence, and has nothing to do with abortion.
If I am forced to give my bodily resources against my will, then my liberty most certainly is compromized.Nothing to do with privacy per se.
And the US Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not, it disagrees with you.If there is no federal right to privacy, and there isn't, then this has nothing to do with privacy.
steen said:Taking my bodily resources against my will most certainyl would be an unreasonable seizure of my body.
If I am forced to give my bodily resources against my will, then my liberty most certainly is compromized.
steen said:And the US Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not, it disagrees with you.
Kandahar said:This is a gross distortion of any right to privacy that can be reasonably extrapolated from the rights in the Constitution. It's nothing more than stretching words beyond their intention to suit your own political agenda, making you no different than a Christian moralist.
And that proves what? That the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. It doesn't prove that the SCOTUS is right.
I hope you are kidding?Kandahar said:This is a gross distortion of any right to privacy that can be reasonably extrapolated from the rights in the Constitution. It's nothing more than stretching words beyond their intention to suit your own political agenda, making you no different than a Christian moralist.
However, what the SCOTUS says is the final word on constitutionality. If the SCOTUS declares something to be (un)constitutional, then it is so.And that proves what? That the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. It doesn't prove that the SCOTUS is right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?