The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by DGS49, Jul 18, 2018.

  1. mgh80
    Offline

    mgh80 Silver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +475
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,318
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +7,127
    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.
     
  3. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    629
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +137
    " Dramatic Lunacy "

    * Natural Freedoms Versus Membership In A Social Civil Contract *

    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 .
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2018
  4. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Thanks Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Some where in the South.
    Ratings:
    +4,912
    The list is to short and does not cover the whole case of Government intervention to "save us" from ourselves.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  5. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Thanks Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Some where in the South.
    Ratings:
    +4,912
    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?
     
  6. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,318
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +7,127
    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.
     
  7. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    629
    Thanks Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +137
    " Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "

    * Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism *

    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
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  8. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    6,157
    Thanks Received:
    899
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Some where in the South.
    Ratings:
    +4,912
    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.
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    51,405
    Thanks Received:
    10,829
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +36,249
    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.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    57,492
    Thanks Received:
    8,507
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +39,784
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1

Share This Page