Right to Privacy, the US Constitution and Ideological Consistency

[Disir]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

Yep. It doesn't say privacy but it is implied:

I may agree with implied powers, but I was asking about enumerated rights. Do people who in debates, who take a strict constructionist stand on what is in the Constitution about abortion and same sex marriage, take a strict constructionist stand on the right to privacy

If there is NO right to an abortion or a right to marry enumerated in the US Constitution, will people admit there is no right to privacy enumerated in it?

No. They are just going to point to the tenth while pole dancing.

 

[Tuckwolf]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

Yep. It doesn't say privacy but it is implied:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

(My favorite) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So far as I know it goes well with my other stances.

Well said.

 

[Tuckwolf]

I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities. To me that's going far at all. Movie stars for example are generally thought of as owing success to popularity and therefore sacrifice right to privacy. I absolutely, vociferously at times, disagree and I practice what I preach. Even though I've had plenty of occasions to, I have never intruded on a celebrity's personal time, when they are out shopping or dining for example, to ask autograph or a picture. If they are out promoting a book or a movie that would different but just because they are a celebrity does not give me or anyone else the right to intrude upon their privacy and the laws should do much better job of protecting them.

 

[Skylar]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

I thought the 9th amendment pretty much settled the issues of enumeration.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Skylar

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

I thought the 9th amendment pretty much settled the issues of enumeration.

Huh?


The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of Congress.

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

Amendment X
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.

"Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?"

"How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?"​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tuckwolf

I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities. To me that's going far at all. Movie stars for example are generally thought of as owing success to popularity and therefore sacrifice right to privacy. I absolutely, vociferously at times, disagree and I practice what I preach. Even though I've had plenty of occasions to, I have never intruded on a celebrity's personal time, when they are out shopping or dining for example, to ask autograph or a picture. If they are out promoting a book or a movie that would different but just because they are a celebrity does not give me or anyone else the right to intrude upon their privacy and the laws should do much better job of protecting them.

as a protected class?

 

[Tuckwolf]

Tuckwolf

I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities. To me that's going far at all. Movie stars for example are generally thought of as owing success to popularity and therefore sacrifice right to privacy. I absolutely, vociferously at times, disagree and I practice what I preach. Even though I've had plenty of occasions to, I have never intruded on a celebrity's personal time, when they are out shopping or dining for example, to ask autograph or a picture. If they are out promoting a book or a movie that would different but just because they are a celebrity does not give me or anyone else the right to intrude upon their privacy and the laws should do much better job of protecting them.

as a protected class?

Not at all. Certain events in a celebrity's life would of course be news worthy because everybody knows about them because of what they do. But then it becomes a question for all of us to answer: How much of this "news" is everybody's business and how much of it is a matter of personal affairs. What I know from having met a number celebrities is that who they are is very much different from the bigger than life persona that everyone knows of them or thinks they know. As a matter of privacy, the Tiger Woods affair comes to mind. The only reason was news was because of his celebrity for what he does. When the same sort of events play out for the average person they and their families are able to work them privately. The guilty parties would make whatever reparations they were willing or able to make the aggrieved parties would suffer through their pain with the help and support of family and friends without anyone else knowing about. As it happened, in the media's pursuit of learning everything they could about the event and everyone involved Woods' wife was badgered ruthlessly thereby causing her far more suffering than she would have otherwise experienced.
On the other hand in a similar story, SC governor Mark Sanford's affair was news worthy and relevant because sanctity of marriage and family values was a part of his political platform and therefore something everyone who supported him had a right to know. The difference is that Woods was only news because of his particular achievements while Sanford was news because he made himself news in support of politics. Still I believe that in Sanford's case only the fact that he had affair and lied to his constituents to hid it was news everything else was a matter of privacy and should have been treated as such.
There is too much invasion of privacy of people involved in performance art who would otherwise not be news except for the fact that people foolishly idolize them because their profession. While they may profit from this idolatry it is not their fault. The idol people make of them has nothing to do with who or what they are in their private lives and just because people put them on pedestal doesn't make it their fault when people realize that the pedestal wasn't deserved. They know they are not the idols make of them nor do they want to be. They only want to be successful in and accepted for the performance of their art and allowed to be who and what they are with all their fault and foibles in the privacy anyone else would have to do the same thing.
That being said, there are few things in life that I value more than my relative anonymity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tuckwolf

I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities. To me that's going far at all. Movie stars for example are generally thought of as owing success to popularity and therefore sacrifice right to privacy. I absolutely, vociferously at times, disagree and I practice what I preach. Even though I've had plenty of occasions to, I have never intruded on a celebrity's personal time, when they are out shopping or dining for example, to ask autograph or a picture. If they are out promoting a book or a movie that would different but just because they are a celebrity does not give me or anyone else the right to intrude upon their privacy and the laws should do much better job of protecting them.

as a protected class?

Not at all. Certain events in a celebrity's life would of course be news worthy because everybody knows about them because of what they do. But then it becomes a question for all of us to answer: How much of this "news" is everybody's business and how much of it is a matter of personal affairs. What I know from having met a number celebrities is that who they are is very much different from the bigger than life persona that everyone knows of them or thinks they know. As a matter of privacy, the Tiger Woods affair comes to mind. The only reason was news was because of his celebrity for what he does. When the same sort of events play out for the average person they and their families are able to work them privately. The guilty parties would make whatever reparations they were willing or able to make the agrieved

Tuckwolf you wrote: "I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities."

Dante asked: "as a protected class?"

How would you propose applying a "right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities?" You obviously believe there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution. Is the phrase it right to privacy mentioned in the text?

 

[Valerie]

there's a big difference between the extent of an individual's right to privacy from government intrusion, and an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy from other individuals who may be inclined to invade another individual's personal privacy..the law has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard..for creeps snapping pics up the dress of a lady on the train, or a stalker peeking into your home, etc...generally speaking, privacy laws exist to protect individuals from harm.




Overview

Search and seizure is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Searches and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. The police have the power to search and seize, but individuals are protected against Arbitrary, unreasonable police intrusions. Freedom from unrestricted search warrants was critical to American colonists.


Under England's rule, many searches were unlimited in scope and conducted without justification. Customs officials could enter the homes of colonists at will to search for violations of customs and trade laws, and suspicionless searches were carried out against outspoken political activists. Searches in the colonies came to represent governmental oppression.


To guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed United States in 1791 ratified the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which states:


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.


State Action

Law enforcement officers are entrusted with the power to conduct investigations, make arrests, perform searches and seizures of persons and their belongings, and occasionally use lethal force in the line of duty. But this power must be exercised within the boundaries of the law, and when police officers exceed those boundaries they jeopardize the admissibility of any evidence collected for prosecution. By and large, the Fourth Amendment and the case law interpreting it establish these boundaries.


The safeguards enumerated by the Fourth Amendment only apply against State Action, namely action taken by a governmental official or at the direction of a governmental official. Thus, actions taken by state or federal law enforcement officials or private persons working with law enforcement officials will be subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment. Bugging, Wiretapping, and other related snooping activity performed by purely private citizens, such as private investigators, do not receive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.


Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976). In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Property, homes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.


Individuals ordinarily possess no reasonable expectation of privacy in things like bank records, vehicle location and vehicle paint, garbage left at roadside for collection, handwriting, the smell of luggage, land visible from a public place, and other places and things visible in plain or open view. Houseguests typically do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the homes they are visiting, especially when they do not stay overnight and their sole purpose for being inside the house is to participate in criminal activity such as a drug transaction. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998). Similarly, a defendant showing only that he was a passenger in a searched car has not shown an expectation of privacy in the car or its contents. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978). Both the houseguest and the motor vehicle passenger must assert a property or possessory interest in the home or motor vehicle before a court will recognize any Fourth Amendment privacy interests such that would prevent a police officer from searching those places without first obtaining a warrant.


Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections. Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.


"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.


Arrest and Miranda
Under the Fourth Amendment, a seizure refers to the collection of evidence by law enforcement officials and to the arrest of persons. An arrest occurs when a police officer takes a person against his or her will for questioning or criminal prosecution. ...

Reasonable expectation of privacy legal definition of Reasonable expectation of privacy

 

[Tuckwolf]

Tuckwolf

I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities. To me that's going far at all. Movie stars for example are generally thought of as owing success to popularity and therefore sacrifice right to privacy. I absolutely, vociferously at times, disagree and I practice what I preach. Even though I've had plenty of occasions to, I have never intruded on a celebrity's personal time, when they are out shopping or dining for example, to ask autograph or a picture. If they are out promoting a book or a movie that would different but just because they are a celebrity does not give me or anyone else the right to intrude upon their privacy and the laws should do much better job of protecting them.

as a protected class?

Not at all. Certain events in a celebrity's life would of course be news worthy because everybody knows about them because of what they do. But then it becomes a question for all of us to answer: How much of this "news" is everybody's business and how much of it is a matter of personal affairs. What I know from having met a number celebrities is that who they are is very much different from the bigger than life persona that everyone knows of them or thinks they know. As a matter of privacy, the Tiger Woods affair comes to mind. The only reason was news was because of his celebrity for what he does. When the same sort of events play out for the average person they and their families are able to work them privately. The guilty parties would make whatever reparations they were willing or able to make the agrieved

Tuckwolf you wrote: "I would go so far as to apply the right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities."

Dante asked: "as a protected class?"

How would you propose applying a "right to privacy to all non-politician celebrities?" You obviously believe there is a right to privacy in the US Constitution. Is the phrase it right to privacy mentioned in the text?

Before I respond to your question I should mention that my post ending with the word aggrieved wasn't finished. Malware bytes popped up in the middle of the word and the thing got posted before I finished. I'm still not sure how but I did an edit as soon as the anti-malware program did it's thing. Sorry to leave you hanging like that.
There was actually no need to explicitly state a specific right. What most people don't realize was that there was a great deal of resistance toward the stating any specific rights whatsoever in the Constitution. This was not because they didn't people to have rights, it was because there was a great fear that specifically enumerating any specific rights would come to limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. It was thought that natural rights as they were defined in The Declaration of Independence were adequately defined as they were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only limitation was that the expression your rights could not deny or limit another persons rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Most sane people would consider the matter of one's privacy a necessary and desirable part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Most if not all people today think that they a right to keep some parts of their life discrete and personal between them and those necessarily complicit in those parts of the live. Although reading Facebook might lead one to wonder.
The Constitution itself is meant as the expression of the collective rights of the people which would necessarily include the empowerment as well as limitations placed upon the representatives the people. Personal rights would be necessarily implied upon those grounds. However, once rights had begun to be specifically enumerated the Ninth Amendment was agreed to be necessary to prevent one's rights from being limited to only those enumerated. And that is why it is not necessary for the right to privacy to be specifically addressed.

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Before I respond to your question I should mention that my post ending with the word aggrieved wasn't finished. Malware bytes popped up in the middle of the word and the thing got posted before I finished. I'm still not sure how but I did an edit as soon as the anti-malware program did it's thing. Sorry to leave you hanging like that.

browser issues with most every site these days. (malware and web page inserts/ads/links)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There was actually no need to explicitly state a specific right. What most people don't realize was that there was a great deal of resistance toward the stating any specific rights whatsoever in the Constitution.

This was not because they didn't people to have rights, it was because there was a great fear that specifically enumerating any specific rights would come to limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. It was thought that natural rights as they were defined in The Declaration of Independence were adequately defined as they were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only limitation was that the expression your rights could not deny or limit another persons rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Most sane people would consider the matter of one's privacy a necessary and desirable part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Most if not all people today think that they a right to keep some parts of their life discrete and personal between them and those necessarily complicit in those parts of the live. Although reading Facebook might lead one to wonder.


The Constitution itself is meant as the expression of the collective rights of the people which would necessarily include the empowerment as well as limitations placed upon the representatives the people. Personal rights would be necessarily implied upon those grounds. However, once rights had begun to be specifically enumerated the Ninth Amendment was agreed to be necessary to prevent one's rights from being limited to only those enumerated. And that is why it is not necessary for the right to privacy to be specifically addressed.

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

You consider Justices who disagree there is a right to privacy in the Constitution to be insane?

 

[Tuckwolf]

There was actually no need to explicitly state a specific right. What most people don't realize was that there was a great deal of resistance toward the stating any specific rights whatsoever in the Constitution.

This was not because they didn't people to have rights, it was because there was a great fear that specifically enumerating any specific rights would come to limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. It was thought that natural rights as they were defined in The Declaration of Independence were adequately defined as they were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only limitation was that the expression your rights could not deny or limit another persons rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Most sane people would consider the matter of one's privacy a necessary and desirable part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Most if not all people today think that they a right to keep some parts of their life discrete and personal between them and those necessarily complicit in those parts of the live. Although reading Facebook might lead one to wonder.


The Constitution itself is meant as the expression of the collective rights of the people which would necessarily include the empowerment as well as limitations placed upon the representatives the people. Personal rights would be necessarily implied upon those grounds. However, once rights had begun to be specifically enumerated the Ninth Amendment was agreed to be necessary to prevent one's rights from being limited to only those enumerated. And that is why it is not necessary for the right to privacy to be specifically addressed.

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

You consider Justices who disagree there is a right to privacy in the Constitution to be insane?

No. I consider them to be wrong.
more later

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There was actually no need to explicitly state a specific right. What most people don't realize was that there was a great deal of resistance toward the stating any specific rights whatsoever in the Constitution.

This was not because they didn't people to have rights, it was because there was a great fear that specifically enumerating any specific rights would come to limit the rights of the people to only those enumerated. It was thought that natural rights as they were defined in The Declaration of Independence were adequately defined as they were: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The only limitation was that the expression your rights could not deny or limit another persons rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Most sane people would consider the matter of one's privacy a necessary and desirable part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Most if not all people today think that they a right to keep some parts of their life discrete and personal between them and those necessarily complicit in those parts of the live. Although reading Facebook might lead one to wonder.


The Constitution itself is meant as the expression of the collective rights of the people which would necessarily include the empowerment as well as limitations placed upon the representatives the people. Personal rights would be necessarily implied upon those grounds. However, once rights had begun to be specifically enumerated the Ninth Amendment was agreed to be necessary to prevent one's rights from being limited to only those enumerated. And that is why it is not necessary for the right to privacy to be specifically addressed.

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

You consider Justices who disagree there is a right to privacy in the Constitution to be insane?

No. I consider them to be wrong.
more later

ok

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supremes can expand on existing rights as far as their imagination and their political affiliation permits but there is no Constitutional right if the "right" is not expressed in the Constitution.

Incorrect.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” Lawrence v. Texas (2008).

The essence of the genius of the Framers, therefore, was their humility, their wisdom to recognize the fact that liberty cannot be comprehensively expressed in any single document of law and governance, and that the legitimacy of the Constitution manifests from the American people who created it, along with their desire to codify the fundamental components of liberty and freedom.

The right to privacy is one such protected liberty codified by the Constitution as fundamental. Likewise, “[t]he association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.” Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supremes can expand on existing rights as far as their imagination and their political affiliation permits but there is no Constitutional right if the "right" is not expressed in the Constitution.

Incorrect.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” Lawrence v. Texas (2008).

The essence of the genius of the Framers, therefore, was their humility, their wisdom to recognize the fact that liberty cannot be comprehensively expressed in any single document of law and governance, and that the legitimacy of the Constitution manifests from the American people who created it, along with their desire to codify the fundamental components of liberty and freedom.

The right to privacy is one such protected liberty codified by the Constitution as fundamental. Likewise, “[t]he association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights.” Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).

Yes and no.
It depends what people consent to.
The Federal Reserve mixes private with public,
but we consent to recognize it.

The ACA mandates do not respect the right to privacy
but those who CONSENT to this argue it is Constitutional as a tax
while those who do NOT consent to this say it violates stated limits
on powers reserved to people and states.

The interpretation of law is based on consent.

You are right, that the WRITTEN laws and precedence
are determined by Congress and Courts.

but the Interpretation of law and judgment of right and wrong
justice and equality is on the spiritual level of people's beliefs,
cannot be legislated away by government, and remains
the choice of the people to consent or dissent by our human free will.

We ATTEMPT to make our written laws and judicial ruling reflect
consent of the public, but where t his fails, violations of equal rights occur
so this is not lawful. That's why we have to appeal and correct laws to
remove the unlawful violations. These wrongs happen all the time,
but that doesn't make it right. Murder rape and other crimes happen
all the time that are violations of law, and that doesn't make that right.

What makes the difference between theft and borrowing is consent.
What makes the difference between rape and having sex is consent.
What make the difference between tyranny and democracy is consent.

You cannot just make and pass laws, signing people's names to
contracts they didn't agree it, and expect to enforce that as lawful.

What gives laws authority is consent of the parties to the contract.

You cannot legislate away free will that is inherent.
Human nature is what it is.

No matter what laws you make or rulings you impose,
if people believe otherwise we remain free to
enforce higher standards and to change laws to reflect that.

Where we are NOT free is to violate laws,
to enforce LOWER standards than what the law states is legal or illegal.

But we are free to enforce HIGHER standards
such as refusing slavery where this is not equal protection of people
even if the laws said it was legal and courts enforced those as property laws.

If you abuse govt to mandate slavery as legal then
you are responsible for conspiring to violate civil rights.

Be forewarned.

I have stated repeatedly that because of difference in beliefs
in either health care as a right or beliefs in personal liberty, such as to choose how to pay for
and provide health care, as inherent and not deprivable except as punishment for a crime,
then the ACA mandates DISCRIMINATE on the basis of creed
and violate either First, Fourteenth and Tenth Amendment rights,
and/or penalize the equal choice to practice other political beliefs while exempting the other.

So enforcing this bill violates equal civil rights
and bullying/harassing/denying others for their beliefs
is political religious abuse. Abusing parties to outnumber
and outvote one belief or the other is conspiring to violate civil rights
of the people and parties of other beliefs by excluding them from equal exercise.

The only solution I see is to acknowledge
the separate but equal political beliefs,
and either write legislation and reforms that agree with both,
that all parties of each belief agree is fair and inclusive
and doesn't impose the burden of one belief on people of another,
or to separate by party, by state or by network to stop imposition back and forth.

anything else is coercive, abusive and not
respecting or protecting beliefs and creeds equally.

Anyone who cannot see this should not serve in govt
in a position that requires this level of judgment to
write and reform policies to be equally inclusive of all people of all parties and beliefs.

Anyone is free to say what is constitutional to them or not.
but laws must be drawn up by consensus, especially
whre religious or political beliefs are involved, or that
is not protecting and representing all people equally
but will result in denial or discrimination by creed.

Thank you.

 

[emilynghiem]

C_Clayton_Jones
please see reply above
by your conditions, slavery is legal until it is made illegal
and so no damages are owed for any slavery before that,
because it is arbitrarily decided by written law and case precedent.

However, for those of us who believe it was always unlawful,
was always a violation of First Amendment free exercise of religion
right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances, since
slaves were people and therefore inalienable human rights
always applied to them although these were not recognized in practice.

then damages were owed for the human rights violations
even before these were written and acknowledged by courts.

You are under some cultlike thinking that depends on
outside authority, Congress and Courts, to issue decrees
before you are free to say if something is lawful or unlawful.

How is that any different than religious followers who
ahve to wait on the Pope to say it is okay to believe
in both evolution and creation and neither conflicts with the
Bible, before they feel free to believe that.

You are using the Courts as some kind of Pope
to dictate interpretation of law for the masses.

And yet you call for separation of church and state.

So all it takes to keep slavery going is to prevent
these people from petitioning through courts
and preventing people from changing the laws
and you can keep slavery on the books
because the records will show it is legal.

And that is justification for you to keep
practicing slavery because the laws on the books say it is lawful.

Sorry but I don't buy that.

Even if you have this cult mentality
and cannot help that what you believe is dictated out of Washington,
it is still a political belief.
And the govt cannot be abused to mandate or dictate that.

If that's all it took to make things legal or illegal,
is just relying on what Congress and Courts pass,
then that is nothing more than a "national religion"
where we happen to elect our priests and popes
to tell us what the law says is right or wrong.
And we follow that like sheep.

Sorry but it's the other way.
We the people are supposed to grant
authority by our consent to shape the
laws and government that represent us.

so if there is not consensus,
we have to AGREE how to settle the
issues so it DOES reflect consent, and thus
respect our equal free choice, freedom of beliefs,
and inalienable liberties and human rights that
no govt has the right to take (except by our consent).

In a conflict involving equally held and respected beliefs,
suppressing the dissent by only counting the
supportive yes votes to pass a bill, and not
including the objections by the no votes to allow equal alternatives,
discriminates against the people of the other belief.

But resolving conflicts to have a consensus on law
would include and protect both beliefs equally.

So that is the more constitutional inclusive
and consistent approach in cases of religious
and political beliefs. trying to bulldoze or bully
over the other is suppression, discrimination and denial
of equal protections of the law, of free exercise of religion,
and freedom from discrimination and punishment by creed.

You are wrongfully unfair if you keep excluding the beliefs
of others, waiting on courts or congress to tell you otherwise.

I'm sorry to hear you do not recognize or respect
the beliefs of others equally as your own.

whatever bias in your political beliefs allows
you to do that, I don't think it is fair healthy or
ethical to impose it on the rest of the nation
by setting "legal precedence" for this way of depending
on Govt to decide conflicts of beliefs by imposing one on the other
unequally. that is not fully constitutional but is violating other amendments
that we are failing to enforce, similar with not recognizing equality for slaves.
somehow people justified those people didn't count equally.
and now entire parties are discounting each other's beliefs as not valid
adn thus not deserving of equal protections and inclusion by law.

very strange. such intelligent high minded people here
and we cannot see past our own biases to see each other's beliefs.

If the beliefs you have and cannot change depend on this chain of command,
similar to cults that have to wait on their leaders to change the laws for them,
that's fine but it is political religion then and we need to recognize this
is happening.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

As you said, there's no enumerated Constitutional Right to Privacy. We have some enumerated rights to privacy nonetheless. And how these get interpreted defines what rights we may have.

Fact is that in the internet age, most of us willfully give away any rights to privacy everytime we register on a website. Then when that bites us in our bottoms we scream bloody murder and assert rights we legally signed away.

 

[danielpalos]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

This seems like some sort of right to "privacy" from "intrusive" government:

"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."

 

[emilynghiem]

Is there a Constitutional right to privacy even if it is not enumerated in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and if so, why -- and if not, why?

How does your answer coexist with other stands you take on rights and the Constitution?

As you said, there's no enumerated Constitutional Right to Privacy. We have some enumerated rights to privacy nonetheless. And how these get interpreted defines what rights we may have.

Fact is that in the internet age, most of us willfully give away any rights to privacy everytime we register on a website. Then when that bites us in our bottoms we scream bloody murder and assert rights we legally signed away.

Tenth amendment
Powers reserved to states and people.