Does the Constitution guarantee a right to privacy?

[jfuh]

"Congress shall make no law abriging...the freedom of speech."

Seems clear cut, right? So how come we have laws regarding slander, hate speech, etc...? Because there is an overwhelmingly compelling state interest that contravenes those constitutional protections. And Bush is arguing that the compelling state interest in conducting these wiretaps overrides this proviso of the 4th in this case. I'm not convinced yet, but then, its not up to me.

I don't buy that kind of rational.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't buy that kind of rational.

Uh, its not whether or not you "buy" that rationale. The fact is, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can be infringed upon by the government. That simple.

 

[Jerry]

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.

Yes it does.
Regarding abortion, there is a second person involved: the unborn. So the woman's right to privacy does not apply because it is not only her body and health involved.

 

[Jerry]

Uh, its not whether or not you "buy" that rationale. The fact is, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can be infringed upon by the government. That simple.

That is absolutely correct.
It is important to note that the specific wire taps in question either originated in, or ended in a terrorist-related forgen country. Non of them were domestic.

 

[Stinger]

I don't buy that kind of rational.

Well if you believe so much in this impregnable right to privacy then do you oppose the outrageous violation of it that the current income tax system is? Why won't those on the left here address THAT violation of privacy?

 

[Jerry]

Well if you believe so much in this impregnable right to privacy then do you oppose the outrageous violation of it that the current income tax system is? Why won't those on the left here address THAT violation of privacy?

Yeah!!!
The government is violating my right to financial-privacy by requiring both my employer and myself to surrender personal information against my will. The government also takes money out of my pay against my will (theft). That is a blatant disregard for the 4th. amendment!!

I'm all for the "fair-tax", or was it "flat-tax", where you pay @ 20% sales tax on everything you buy, with the aboution of income-tax.

 

[tryreading]

Amendment X doesn't deal with privacy, the only amendments referenced in the original incorporation of the right to privacy were 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14.

I keep writing the 10th, but I mean the 9th.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[tryreading]

Well if you believe so much in this impregnable right to privacy then do you oppose the outrageous violation of it that the current income tax system is? Why won't those on the left here address THAT violation of privacy?

Are there any people on the left or otherwise who are for the income tax?

 

[RightinNYC]

I keep writing the 10th, but I mean the 9th.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Still has nothing to do with applying the BoR to the states. That's all XIV.

 

[RightinNYC]

Are there any people on the left or otherwise who are for the income tax?

I am FOR the income tax. I'm pretty sure the vast, vast majority of people are FOR the income tax. Most of the argument is just about those pesky details like how much, on who, etc...

Then again, a VAT tax wouldn't be so bad either...

 

[jfuh]

Uh, its not whether or not you "buy" that rationale. The fact is, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights can be infringed upon by the government. That simple.

Warrentless wire tapping, that's very diffent from simple incursion on rights, it's out right illegal.

 

[jfuh]

Well if you believe so much in this impregnable right to privacy then do you oppose the outrageous violation of it that the current income tax system is? Why won't those on the left here address THAT violation of privacy?

So what? No one on the right address any such issue at all. In fact you're people on the right do not address these issues, but actually support such invasions of privacy.

 

[RightinNYC]

Warrentless wire tapping, that's very diffent from simple incursion on rights, it's out right illegal.

Did you READ the original post? The gov CAN infringe on constitutional rights in certain scenarios. Whether or not this scenario fits is something for the legal minds to decide, not your amateur analysis based on your biases.

 

[RightinNYC]

So what? No one on the right address any such issue at all. In fact you're people on the right do not address these issues, but actually support such invasions of privacy.

Nobody at all has said ANYthing about it...

http://www.fairtax.org/

...except for Congressman John Linder, who is a Rep on the powerful Ways and Means committee who has sponsored a bill to take care of it.

 

[jfuh]

Did you READ the original post? The gov CAN infringe on constitutional rights in certain scenarios. Whether or not this scenario fits is something for the legal minds to decide, not your amateur analysis based on your biases.

You are certainly the professional legal analyst on this aren't you?
There is a legal standard for such electronic survailance and it's called FISA. Very clear on what can and can not be used and done. Even the allowance of 72hrs in the instance there is insufficient time before a warrent can be secured. The Current warentless wiretaps are completely illegal.

 

[RightinNYC]

You are certainly the professional legal analyst on this aren't you?

Did I say I was?

No, actually I said:

Actually, that's not true. No constitutional protection is beyond all interference. It just has to pass strict scrutiny to impose on a fundamental right.

"Congress shall make no law abriging...the freedom of speech."

Seems clear cut, right? So how come we have laws regarding slander, hate speech, etc...? Because there is an overwhelmingly compelling state interest that contravenes those constitutional protections. And Bush is arguing that the compelling state interest in conducting these wiretaps overrides this proviso of the 4th in this case. I'm not convinced yet, but then, its not up to me.

Nice effort though.

There is a legal standard for such electronic survailance and it's called FISA. Very clear on what can and can not be used and done. Even the allowance of 72hrs in the instance there is insufficient time before a warrent can be secured. The Current warentless wiretaps are completely illegal.

I'm well aware. But the executive branch is arguing that Congress's AUMF specifically created an exception to FISA that allowed this. In addition, the Department of Justice is arguing that the president has the "well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States."

Do those provide enough legal leeway for the wiretapping? I don't know, and you certainly don't either. It's obviously contestable either way, otherwise there wouldn't be so much arguing about it from both sides.

The fact is, there is a decent legal argument on both sides. So why don't we let the courts decide what the law says and means, and refrain from offering our own ill-informed and unauthoritative opinions?

 

[jfuh]

Did I say I was?

No you didn't but you hinted at my being ignorant, so that was in reseponse to your statement.

I'm well aware. But the executive branch is arguing that Congress's AUMF specifically created an exception to FISA that allowed this.

Since when did it become the job of the executive branch to interrpret law?

In addition, the Department of Justice is arguing that the president has the "well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States."

AGainst foreign powers. Hell even during the cold war, when domestic espionage, spy, sleeper cell so on with foriegn supported trained agents were very much present and much better equipped there was no such justification, now all of a sudden commander in chief is king of the hill with even the ability to interrpret law? It's bullshit.

Do those provide enough legal leeway for the wiretapping? I don't know, and you certainly don't either. It's obviously contestable either way, otherwise there wouldn't be so much arguing about it from both sides.

The fact is, there is a decent legal argument on both sides. So why don't we let the courts decide what the law says and means, and refrain from offering our own ill-informed and unauthoritative opinions?[/QUOTE]

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Well if you believe so much in this impregnable right to privacy then do you oppose the outrageous violation of it that the current income tax system is? Why won't those on the left here address THAT violation of privacy?

So what? No one on the right address any such issue at all. In fact you're people on the right do not address these issues, but actually support such invasions of privacy.

It's the left that claims there is a right to privacy, so how do you reconcile that with the requirement that we report our most pirvate life details on our income tax forms and requiring our emoloyers and financial institutions report details about our lives to the government. My wife had surgery last year and we have to supply in detail to the government who the doctors were and what they did. If you truely believe in a right to privacy how can you support this? Or do you agree we need to get rid of the income tax system?

 

[Stinger]

Then you also own your own bodily resources.

So do you have a right to sell one of your kidney's if you want to?

 

[jfuh]

It's the left that claims there is a right to privacy, so how do you reconcile that with the requirement that we report our most pirvate life details on our income tax forms and requiring our emoloyers and financial institutions report details about our lives to the government. My wife had surgery last year and we have to supply in detail to the government who the doctors were and what they did. If you truely believe in a right to privacy how can you support this? Or do you agree we need to get rid of the income tax system?

So I can only assume that in contrast to the right to privacy belief of our left, your right believes citizens have no such right?

 

[RightinNYC]

No you didn't but you hinted at my being ignorant, so that was in reseponse to your statement.

We're both ignorant of the complex legal issues behind this argument.

Since when did it become the job of the executive branch to interrpret law?

They're not interpreting law, they're arguing it. Have you heard of the Department of Justice before? That would be what they do.

AGainst foreign powers. Hell even during the cold war, when domestic espionage, spy, sleeper cell so on with foriegn supported trained agents were very much present and much better equipped there was no such justification, now all of a sudden commander in chief is king of the hill with even the ability to interrpret law? It's bullshit.

Well that's one opinion. But whether or not it's "bullshit" isn't the point. Whether it's legal and constitutional is the point. And that's up to the courts. So lets not waste our time, and wait to see what they say.

 

[doughgirl]

Kandahar said, “Of course it does. I don't see how anyone can read those amendments you listed, and come to the conclusion that the founders weren't talking about privacy...”

They do not mention privacy. They didn’t mention abortion either but I think they regarded the unborn child as human with rights.

The Constitution does NOT contain a right to privacy. There is nothing constitutional about the right to privacy, because that right is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. However it was declared by the Supreme Court in 1973 as a right higher than an unborn child’s right to live. (that would have horrified the founders) Those who wrote the Constitution would be disturbed to learn that their document which was dedicated to ensure justice and compassion for ALL people has been claimed by some to gurantee a right to kill preborn children.


Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights. A man who is beating his wife in the privacy of his own home…could he say, "It’s no one’s business but mine? You have no right to interfere."


I hate to keep bringing up abortion but I must to make this point. Does abortion kill babies? Killing done in private is no more acceptable nor less destructive than killing or abusing done in public.

What is the difference between a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy and allows her boyfriend to do it at home in private....with a woman who goes into a clinic and lets a physician dismember the baby? You get the same outcome in both scenarios. Death to the unborn child....one in public and one privately. Only difference, the woman doing it at home would be charged with a crime... An act the Supreme Court said was legal.

Good website about privacy. Roe V Wade - The Unconstitutional Decision
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html

Star said,

I'd say that all those amendments imply a right to privacy.”

I stll do not see the word privacy?

”Though I think we do have a right to privacy, I don’t see what abortion has to do with that.”

It has everything to do with it. The abortion issue was based on the privacy issue.

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.”

Steen who is forced to give blood? Who is forced to give a kidney?

HTColeman said, “I said no, as in it does not guarantee a right to privacy, it implies a right to privacy but it is by no means absolute. Nothing is absolute in the Constitution because it is so vauge, and they could be interpreted differently by anyone, I mean after the 14th amendment was passed, the S.C. interpreted it to apply to businesses, not freed slaves. It all depends on whos in power.”

You are so right. It implies a right but it is not specific. As in abortion I believe the Founders implied that the unborn were included in the Constitution and that they had rights. At that time they valued life and believed it to be precious. In no way shape or form at that time would they have condoned abortion.

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.”

The Supreme Court didn’t think so, they used the privacy issue as the whole basis for their abortion ruling. The abortion law has everything to do with “privacy.”

 

[Stinger]

It absolutely gaurantees the right to privacy, which is precisly why the NSA warrentless wiretaps are illegal.

So I can only assume that in contrast to the right to privacy belief of our left, your right believes citizens have no such right?

I have asked you directly several times now how do you square that with the requirements that we give up our most basic privacy under the income tax laws.

I can only assume you refuse to answer my question.

 

[jfuh]

I have asked you directly several times now how do you square that with the requirements that we give up our most basic privacy under the income tax laws.

I can only assume you refuse to answer my question.

I don't need to square any thing with tax laws. You're commiting the fallacy of juxtaposition. Tax collection and spying on what I do daily is not the same at all.
There's no need for me to answer it all because it's not the argument I'm making.

 

[Stinger]

I don't need to square any thing with tax laws. You're commiting the fallacy of juxtaposition.

No, but you are committing a dodge.

Tax collection and spying on what I do daily is not the same at all.

Privacy is privacy, this thread is about a RIGHT to privacy. If you believe you have one then how do you square the requirement that you report your most private financial and other data to the Federal Government each and every year with this belief?

There's no need for me to answer it all because it's not the argument I'm making.

You desperately don't want to because it blows any premise of a right to privacy, that's why you refuse.