The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

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

  1. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,278
    Thanks Received:
    1,325
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +5,471
    Reasoned arguments? I have challenged the Board to find the 'Right of Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments, and you come up with bupkis.

    The political Right is not attempting to "take away" anyone's rights. What I am pointing out that by creating an illusory "right of privacy," a "right" has been created our of NOTHING, WITH NO LIMITATIONS. The Constitution deals with eavesdropping, searches, seizures of property, quartering soldiers in private residences. The "right of privacy" deals with taking birth control pills, killing babies in the womb, sodomy, marriage, and who knows what else? The rationale that supports gay "marriage" is indistinguishable from the arguments used in support of incest, bestiality, and polygamy. Are we to understand that the Constitution, as currently constituted, demands acceptance of these practices? They are all "private" behavior, right? Harming no one.

    Who knows what else can be done with this cudgel of a "right"? Arson of one's own house? That's a private matter, if insurance isn't involved. Privacy is undefined, undefinable, and totally unconnected with the Constitution as it currently exists.

    If "you" want a Constitutional "Right of Privacy," there is a way to get one. See Article 5 of the Constitution for instructions. But until that happens you can shove your so called "right of privacy" where the sun don't shine. And may God give Trump enough openings on the Supreme Court to un-do the "Constitutional" atrocities of the past 50 years.

    McCain's gone, now let's work on RBG.
     
  2. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    324
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +66
    * Well Spring Hand Out *

    * Organization Of Terminology Complexities *

    Basic elements of individualism are self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( property , willful intents ) ; these are founded from negative liberties free of illegitimate aggression from government and from other private individuals , which establishes its determinations from non aggression principles .

    A negative wright establishes a negative liberty to be free of government ; however , a negative wright does not establish a negative liberty to be free of illegitimate aggression against ones self ownership or self determination from other individuals .

    A positive wright may establish a negative liberty to be free of other individuals , or it may establish a positive liberty to be dependent on other individuals , that by definition is a law prescribing an assertive action of government .

    By definition , a negative wright is described as any law defining a non action , a negative action , an inaction , of government , that is what a government is proscribed , prohibited from an authoritarian assertion .

    * Subjective Terms Introduced Without An Compelling Definition *
    Whether wrights to privacy for self ownership and for self determination are invoked from the fourth , or fifth , or ninth amendment , non aggression principles founds a legitimate basis for determining limits of public or private intervention into private affairs and what is to be deemed as " UNREASONABLE " .

    This reference noted now twice is without response - Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? .

    * Alternative Personas Calling Out Against Heretics And Hypocrites *

    A basic premise of Antinomianism - Wikipedia is that by no name will one invoke a law : not by mu sa , not by is sa , not by mu ham ad , not be pretenses of an ineffable deity , from which ensues a paradox as adherents aspire to remove all written laws from society through a utopian expectation that introduces dystopian consequences .


    * Standards Upon Which Whey Try *
    The genetic religions of torahnism and qurayshism include a nomianism that would not apply outside their respective city states of israel and of hejaz ; whence , otherwise see antinomianism ; whence , include non aggression principles to elucidate a pretext for " REASONABLE " .
    * Sun Stroked With Desert Madness *
    Actually , enough congress persons have read the thread at the following link , and enough interns have had it explained to them , that any peep against roe v wade decision is made non sensible - US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion

    The future of the country remains at stake for a number of reasons but abortion is not one of them .

    The guidance from democrats towards authoritarianism of a bureaucratic collective is contemptible , but it is no less contemptible than nomian theists , as both decry non aggression principles and undermine informed consent .

    * Distant Oscillation References *


    - Abortion : Anti US Tenth Ninth Amendment Polity Pundits : Description Distribution

    - Christian Antinomianism Against Legalism of Fictional Ishmaelism
    - Sectarian Nomian Legalism Versus Secular Non Nomian Legalism


    * Reference End Notes *

    Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[2]

     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2018
  3. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,078
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    Nonsense. We told you quite clearly....that the Constitution doesn't create ANY right. The constitution only creates powers. Thus, demanding we cite the constitution to 'prove' a right exists demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution does and what the basis of rights are. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear, the constitution merely *enumerates* some rights. While unenumerated rights still in reserve by the people.

    Making your demand that a citation of the constitution to 'prove' a right exists just more pseudo-legal gibber jabber. As is your assumption that any unemumerated right is 'imaginary'. The 9th amendment puts that entire concept to bed soundly and utterly.

    And why, pray tell, would we anyone need a warrant for searches.....if there was no right to privacy?

    The right to privacy deals with control of one's own body. Which is the property of every individual respectively. Every person born in the US has a right to their own life. Yet per your bizarro interpretation of the constitution (in both word and in twisted purpose) is that without a bill of sale and a deed of ownership recognized by the state (as we have with say, a home), that we have no right to our own bodies. Which, of course, is nonsense.

    The right to privacy is literally nothing more than the right to be left alone, the right to personal autonomy.
     
  4. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    55,911
    Thanks Received:
    8,319
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,089
    All rights not expressly granted to the government or states are retained by citizens.
     
  5. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,078
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    Powers, but yeah.
     
  6. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    55,911
    Thanks Received:
    8,319
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,089
    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.

    This comes from the Articles of Confederation:

    Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
     
  7. ABikerSailor
    Offline

    ABikerSailor Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    42,160
    Thanks Received:
    7,045
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Amarillo TX
    Ratings:
    +17,512
    People might initially feel like they have a right of privacy, but they forfeit it when they sign up for all these new apps that help them keep in touch better with all their friends, or something that makes their shopping or life easier.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Abatis
    Offline

    Abatis VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    354
    Thanks Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    80
    Location:
    Upper Bucks County, PA
    Ratings:
    +143
    The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't Roe or even Griswold, it's Slaughterhouse.

    Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.

    That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism.

    In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,278
    Thanks Received:
    1,325
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +5,471
    I have no Particular opinion on whether a Constitutional right of privacy would be a good idea. My point is that it is not there npw, that it was made up by a rogue Court, and since it was made up and not DEFINED, the Court is free to "interpret" it to include anything the Left Wing wants to include. As stated above, under its current rationale, incest laws, laws against polygamy, and laws against bestiality care all clearly "unconstitutional ."
     
  10. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    38,832
    Thanks Received:
    895
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +5,511
    we have to convince the right wing; they don't believe those are forms of "regulation" to be cut as waste.
     

Share This Page