The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

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

  1. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,646
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +2,014
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,646
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +2,014
    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.
     
  3. Dan Stubbs
    Offline

    Dan Stubbs FORGET ---- HELL Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,646
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    160
    Location:
    Fairhope Alabama
    Ratings:
    +2,014
    The right to own a gun is highly restricted, only certain weapons are not registered and these are of the type collected for history.
     
  4. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    30,303
    Thanks Received:
    4,205
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,684
    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:

    Which was later shortened to just this:

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,875
    Thanks Received:
    1,239
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +4,806
    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.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    30,303
    Thanks Received:
    4,205
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,684
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    46,631
    Thanks Received:
    9,987
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,019
    That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.
     
  8. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    30,303
    Thanks Received:
    4,205
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,684
    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.
     
  9. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,875
    Thanks Received:
    1,239
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +4,806
    Incredible level of delusionality.

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

    You are hopeless.
     
  10. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    30,303
    Thanks Received:
    4,205
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,684
    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.
     

Share This Page