The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

[mgh80]

The Constitution doesn't grant anybody rights-not even the first 10 amendments. It lists rights that the government can't take away (hence the "Shall not be infringed). There's a BIG distinction between those two ideas and it was done deliberately.

 

[DGS49]

What is "privacy"? The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects." It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.

This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely. But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time. There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights). The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it. Poppycock!

Such a reading renders meaningless the provisions in Article V for revising the Constitution, because it implicitly asserts that Constitution can be modified by judicial whim.

Bullshit on steroids.

There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.

Which would force these brave "champions of wimmins' rights" to propose a REAL Amendment to the Constitution that would legalize what they have pretended to be the case these past 45 years or so. Good luck with that, mother fukkers.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dramatic Lunacy "

* Natural Freedoms Versus Membership In A Social Civil Contract *

There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.

Your clueless trolling is comical .

If you want to know the actual basis of roe v wade - read it here - US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion .

It basically relates that a state is concerned with reprising violation of wrights for citizens and any who is not a citizen , and has not met the minimal requirement of birth for equal protection , has no protected wrights .

 

[Dan Stubbs]

It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.

So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:

Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?

The list is to short and does not cover the whole case of Government intervention to "save us" from ourselves.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

What is "privacy"? The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects." It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.

This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely. But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time. There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights). The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it. Poppycock!

Such a reading renders meaningless the provisions in Article V for revising the Constitution, because it implicitly asserts that Constitution can be modified by judicial whim.

Bullshit on steroids.

There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.

Which would force these brave "champions of wimmins' rights" to propose a REAL Amendment to the Constitution that would legalize what they have pretended to be the case these past 45 years or so. Good luck with that, mother fukkers.

Working from my poor memory I seem to remember some about a person had the right to have his papers protected from government search or something like that. I am I not remember right?

 

[DGS49]

Monk-Eye.

I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade. It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. If you disagree, show it to me.

The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "

* Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism *

Monk-Eye.

I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade. It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. If you disagree, show it to me.

The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.

Congratulations , my credentials include sweeping the floor with legal review on this issue , what is your point ?

Because beings without a physical capacity for sentience have also not acquired development for natural viability a faeiouyt us does not have any wrights and is private property of the mother , whereby the fourth amendment follows to be secure in their persons and effects ( self ownership and self determination ; and , the fifth amendment follows that government must provide just compensation for taking private property .

Thus , because undoubtedly you may likely identify yourself with the term antifederalism , just in case you may not have met one , do you also identify yourself with antistatistism , where tyranny by majority at a state level is also rebuked as being more valid than individualism ?

An ignorance of heresy against antinomianism is more resentful than a poor understanding of political science where liberties of individualism are entitled when consistent with non aggression principles .

Step forth to challenge this premise , Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? , else recant a vain vendetta that roe v wade is based upon a wright to privacy in the first place , as it is based upon a criteria to qualify for citizenship !

* Stick That In Your Paltry Personal Volition Sentiments for Federalized Social Welfare *

A government proscription of abortion entitles any woman which would seek to acquire an abortion and if prohibited , then its private property is being taken by government from whom just compensation is due .
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

" Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "

* Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism *

Monk-Eye.

I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade. It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. If you disagree, show it to me.

The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.

Congratulations , my credentials include sweeping the floor with legal review on this issue , what is your point ?

Because beings without a physical capacity for sentience have also not acquired development for natural viability a faeiouyt us does not have any wrights and is private property of the mother , whereby the fourth amendment follows to be secure in their persons and effects ( self ownership and self determination ; and , the fifth amendment follows that government must provide just compensation for taking private property .

Thus , because undoubtedly you may likely identify yourself with the term antifederalism , just in case you may not have met one , do you also identify yourself with antistatistism , where tyranny by majority at a state level is also rebuked as being more valid than individualism ?

An ignorance of heresy against antinomianism is more resentful than a poor understanding of political science where liberties of individualism are entitled when consistent with non aggression principles .

Step forth to challenge this premise , Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? , else recant a vain vendetta that roe v wade is based upon a wright to privacy in the first place , as it is based upon a criteria to qualify for citizenship !

* Stick That In Your Paltry Personal Volition Sentiments for Federalized Social Welfare *

A government proscription of abortion entitles any woman which would seek to acquire an abortion and if prohibited , then its private property is being taken by government from whom just compensation is due .
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have given the Roe case much thought in past years, and it really seems that the derision to terminate is bwteen the father and mother, but the weight in on the female side.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The imaginary ‘individual right to possess a gun.’

The imaginary ‘right to self-defense.’

Conservatives can’t have it both ways; if there’s no right to privacy, then there is also no individual right to possess a firearm.

 

[saveliberty]

The Constitution enumerates what government can do and grants all else to the state or individuals. Clearly limiting government by its very nature insures and allows for privacy. The Bill of Rights outlines all the travesties committed by England upon the Colonists and affirms the new government will protect its citizens.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Constitution enumerates what government can do and grants all else to the state or individuals. Clearly limiting government by its very nature insures and allows for privacy. The Bill of Rights outlines all the travesties committed by England upon the Colonists and affirms the new government will protect its citizens.

Working as a Deputy in what is called the old days, it would be wrong to search a guys car for evidence on a crime that you did not see. Now it sort of seems that you can for just about anything that a DOG can smell. The only reason we had to search your car was if you were going to jail for some reason. This was to protect the Deputy from being accused of taking something of value.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Constitution doesn't grant anybody rights-not even the first 10 amendments. It lists rights that the government can't take away (hence the "Shall not be infringed). There's a BIG distinction between those two ideas and it was done deliberately.

Entry into a mans house is not allowed,. unless a crime is or has occurred or someone is in distress, or a danger is evident or in fresh pursuit. Those were the rules, sometimes these are in the State Constitution and are more restricted than the Federal.
A good example: Fla Law in the cases of a death of someone requires that the body has to be id with a name and a death of violence has to be shown.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The imaginary ‘individual right to possess a gun.’

The imaginary ‘right to self-defense.’

Conservatives can’t have it both ways; if there’s no right to privacy, then there is also no individual right to possess a firearm.

The right to own a gun is highly restricted, only certain weapons are not registered and these are of the type collected for history.

 

[Skylar]

It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.

So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:

Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?

You're so profoundly wrong its scary. The constitution is an exhaustive list of powers held by the government.

It is not, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights held by the people. In fact, the opponents of the Bill of Rights argued that rights existed without the need for enumeration. And that if some rights were enumerated, some might be fallaciously lead to believe that those were the ONLY rights held by the people.

Here's an except from that debate:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

James Madison



Madison added the 9th amendment as a comprise to assure those opponents that enumeration in the constitution didn't create rights.

This was Madison's first draft for the 9th amendment:

"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution"

Proposed 9th amendment

Which was later shortened to just this:

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

No one, I repeat NO ONE in the entire constitutional congress, from any side or any state, ever argued that a right had to be enumerated in the constitution to exist. That you do demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what the constitution actually is, what rights are and what what powers are.

You're so wrong, its scary.

 

[DGS49]

Skylar, I won't call you an idiot, but you are wrong.

Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on. These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.

But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights), they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures). And this is literally nonsense.

It was necessary to base the Right of Privacy on enumerated rights because the Right of Privacy was being used to void existing laws, some of such laws having been on the books for centuries, without objection. For example, obscenity laws and sodomy laws, and most importantly, laws prohibiting abortion. When the Right of Privacy was invented, these laws had been in effect, without any Constitutional challenge, since BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY.

So to claim, as the S.C. justices did, that the Right of Privacy had been in there all along, is legally and Constitutionally indefensible. It was an absolute rebellion and violation of their oaths of office, and was, in my opinion, grounds to impeach each of the Justices who voted, in case after case, to create and perpetuate this non-existent "Constitutional" right.

And this is the core of the Evil of the Democratic Left in this country. They want to CHANGE the Constitution to say what they think it should say, and they KNOW that these changes could NEVER be implemented through the procedures mandated by Article V of the Constitution. So they have waged a campaign, started by FDR, to change the Constitution through "interpretation" of its provisions to say what they want it to say, regardless of the words of the Constitution or the intentions of the people who wrote it and ratified it, piece by piece.

Judge Kavanaugh, along with any additional Justices nominated by President Trump, will thrust a knife into the heart of this campaign, delaying (and reversing) its effects for a generation or more, and bringing the Constitution back in line with its true and intended meaning. Which is why the Democrats are absolutely apoplectic about killing his nomination, or delaying it until either Trump is ousted or the Democrats take the Senate.

The future of the country is at stake.

 

[Skylar]

Skylar, I won't call you an idiot, but you are wrong.

I won't call you desperately, willfully ignorant and replacing the wording and intent of the 9th amendment with your imagination. But of course you're wrong.

Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on. These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.

The 9th amendment mentions no such limitation. You've imagined it. And arbitrarily making up caveats and restrictions has no particular value in any legal debate.

SHOW me that this was the meaning of the 9th amendment with evidence. You'll find that in the Constitutional Convention there were no such limits placed on it. Nor were there any in the quotes from Madison I've offered you on the purpose of the 9th amendment. Nor were there any such restrictions in the 1st draft of the 9th amendment.

You've made them all up. And your imagination isn't evidence. Its an excuse for it.

But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights), they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures). And this is literally nonsense.

Reserve rights *are* actual rights. There is no distinction in terms of constitutional protection between enumerated and unemumerated rights. They cited the 4th amendment. Specifically, the implications of privacy with the requirement of warrants for search and seizure.

The founders made it ludicrously clear when debating the bill of rights that any power not delegated to government was retained by the states and people. With the 14th amendment applying most of the federal prohibitions in the abrogation of rights on to the States. Also, by intention.

And of course, the Supreme Court is the designated arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to mean. Also by intent and design. When the federal government oversteps their bounds in terms of their power, they Supreme Court and and should

Again, read Madison, including his comments on the Bill of Rights, its purpose and why the 9th amendment was created.

Read Hamilton. Specifically his objections to a Bill of Rights. And Federalist Paper 78 on the purpose and scope of judicial authority. Between Hamilton and Madison, they do an excellent job of laying out the respective roles of each branches, the power that the government was supposed to have, and inexhaustive nature of rights.

I'd also suggest reading Bingham and Howard in regards to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States in the 14th amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.

 

[Skylar]

That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.

Not just privacy rights.....but the most fundamental rights possessed by anyone: the control of the use of their own body.

Never forget.....the right wants to strip people of federally protected constitutional rights, turn it over to the States and criminalize those rights.

 

[DGS49]

Incredible level of delusionality.

Who leads you out of the rain? Who wipes your bum?

You are hopeless.

 

[Skylar]

Incredible level of delusionality.

Who leads you out of the rain? Who wipes your bum?

You are hopeless.

Insults are a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. They are an excuse for one.

Try again. This time responding to the arguments presented in a rational manner. Rather than throwing a verbal tantrum.