The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

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

  1. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    31,962
    Thanks Received:
    4,375
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    Or the 10th amendment.
     
  2. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    31,962
    Thanks Received:
    4,375
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    Yeah, when I hear a GOP lawmaker use the words 'freedom', 'liberty' or 'patriot' in legislation, I know he's probably going to do something fairly awful.
     
  3. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    240
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +53
    " Inventive Other Wise Interesting "

    * Gracious Agreeable Replies *
    Thank you Abatis for the informing reference to here Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother ,

    There are many anti-federatlists which are statists ( ? statistists , statelists , stateastist ), while including anti-statistism as well would be a consequence of espousing individualism based within non aggression principles .

    * Court Ignoring Obvious Clauses *

    Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia
    The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted. It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. However, as the federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship. In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.

    * Non Aggression Theories Originate *

    The roe v wade decision is based upon on an amendment stipulating birth as a prerequisite for citizenship and hence for equal protection , and roe v wade is a decision consistent with both birth as a prerequisite for state citizenship and federal citizenship and hence for equal protection .

    A collective state is comprised of citizens and a collective state is obligated to its citizens , while non citizens also require birth for equal protection and are to be " subject to its jurisdiction " for even a slightest supposition for equal endowment of its law .

    * Onus Politicians Going Fore Hours Without Competent Economic Aptitudes *
    The country would due well to get out from under a number of over deriding perspectives .

    There are 1.4 million permanent legal immigrants arriving annually to the us with lower labor market skills and a greater propensity for overpopulation with social depression .

    The United States Secretary of Labor - Wikipedia is responsible for reporting on immigration levels relative with labor demands .

    States expend budgets for commercial infrastructure ; yet states also fund nearly all social welfare for its residents and those expenditures are not expected to recouped ; alternatively , advocates for federal coffers seek a plethora of income tax receipts to float the social security system pyramid scheme of pilfered funds .
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2018
  4. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    31,962
    Thanks Received:
    4,375
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,656
    The right to control of the use of your *own body* isn't a 'left wing' right. Its a human right. Its the right to be left alone. Your assertion that the right to privacy isn't a 'constitutional right' is pseudo-legal gibber-jabber. Just you ignoring the Judiciary and making up whatever you'd like.

    Constitutionally, you play no role in defining any part of the constitution. Constitutionally, the judiciary has a DUTY to interpret the constitution.

    Making your assertions of what rights exist and which don't mere legally useless statements of personal belief that have zero relevance to our actual laws or rights.
     

Share This Page