Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[WorldWatcher]

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

.


Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?


.>>>>

Do you often post such nonsense?

From your OP: "Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?"

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


.>>>>

again with nonsense?

It's a very simple question based on your wording in the OP.

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


>>>>>

 

[Natural Citizen]

I have no idea who this 'we' of yours is

Your poll says 85.7%. Don't you read gud? Ha.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

The Fourth Amendment is almost entirely about privacy. Actually, so is the Third Amendment, but it's not so obvious unless you really understand the background of it.

How so? If I were a constructionist or texualist, strict or loose, how would you convince me? Where is privacy mentioned?

Major Originalist like Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no right of privacy exists.

The Constitution lists several very specific privacy rights, but there is not, in fact, a generalized right to privacy. One very good reason would be that criminals usually attempt to commit their crimes in private.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

.


Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?


.>>>>

Do you often post such nonsense?

From your OP: "Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?"

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


.>>>>

again with nonsense?

It's a very simple question based on your wording in the OP.

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


>>>>>

No, as a matter of fact, you don't. See the 9th and 10th Amendments. US society has always generally held that people have a right to do as they please, within limits that must be carefully and specifically delineated by law.

However, since the Bill of Rights is not about granting rights, but about restricting the government's infringement upon them, this means there is no particular bar to government infringement on personal privacy beyond the specific instances enumerated in the Constitution.

I can say that the government cannot enter and search my apartment without a warrant, because it violates the 4th Amendment restrictions on government search and seizure. But I cannot honestly say that the government cannot restrict how and when I can have an abortion - should I mysteriously wish to do such a loathsome thing - and cite a specific point at which the Constitution enumerates a restriction on the government's ability to do so.

 

[JBvM]

From your OP: "Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?"

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


.>>>>

Do you think this is a straw man contest?

 

[WorldWatcher]

From your OP: "Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?"

Do you have to be able to point to a right in the Constitution for it to be held by people?


.>>>>

Do you think this is a straw man contest?

How is asking you a question based on your request to "point to it" in the Constitution a strawman question. I quoted your OP.

I'll be happy to answer my own question. Answer: Under the IX Amendment not all rights must be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by people.

See how easy that was. A reading of the text of the Constitution itself notes that not all rights are enumerated.


.>>>>

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Incompetent Buffoonery At Large "

* Clear As Day To All Except A Criminal *

sorry
you lose

That is hilarious .

How so , other than you appear to lack an intellectual capacity to understand even the simplest of conclusions ?

* Brutal Reality *

"Constitutional Review Of Abortion"

At the inception of the constitution, when natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of citizenship, the citizen is the sole, primary, principle and exclusive recipient of protections as constructed through the legalism of its doctrine.

The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth.

According to the 14th amendment, the extension of equal protection to any other being, whether it be described as a person, a non-citizen, or otherwise, cannot have any greater rights than that of a citizen.

Since a citizen must be born to receive protected wrights, any other being must also be born to receive protected wrights, else that other would be receiving greater wrights than those received by that of a citizen.

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Ultimately, through judicial activism, Roe V Wade modified the meaning of birth from parturition to viability, which was estimated to begin at the end of the second trimester.

Viability is consistent on a time line with the onset of foetal pain as evidenced from the JAMA, which concludes a necessary presence for thalamocortical radiations.

Pain implies the onset of sentience, and sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, as a minimum prerequisite for conscientious objection by a foetus, which is a philosophical birth, whereby a foetus may initially qualify as a legal victim that may be represented by legal proxy.

Otherwise, by constitution and philosophical reason, prior to birth, the foetus is the private property of the mother, by intrinsic possession, for which privacy protections of the constitution apply.

Unborn foetal protection laws must be consistent with the constitution, and any law must define violations and penalties as consequences to actions against the mother, which may include elevated penalties for special circumstances.

 

[JBvM]

How is asking you a question based on your request to "point to it" in the Constitution a strawman question. I quoted your OP.

I'll be happy to answer my own question. Answer: Under the IX Amendment not all rights must be enumerated in the Constitution to be held by people.

See how easy that was. A reading of the text of the Constitution itself notes that not all rights are enumerated.

How?

asking a question that has an obvious answer?

 

[JBvM]

" Incompetent Buffoonery At Large "

* Clear As Day To All Except A Criminal *

sorry
you lose

That is hilarious .

How so , other than you appear to lack an intellectual capacity to understand even the simplest of conclusions ?

* Brutal Reality *

"Constitutional Review Of Abortion"

At the inception of the constitution, when natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of citizenship, the citizen is the sole, primary, principle and exclusive recipient of protections as constructed through the legalism of its doctrine.

The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth.

According to the 14th amendment, the extension of equal protection to any other being, whether it be described as a person, a non-citizen, or otherwise, cannot have any greater rights than that of a citizen.

Since a citizen must be born to receive protected wrights, any other being must also be born to receive protected wrights, else that other would be receiving greater wrights than those received by that of a citizen.

The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Ultimately, through judicial activism, Roe V Wade modified the meaning of birth from parturition to viability, which was estimated to begin at the end of the second trimester.

Viability is consistent on a time line with the onset of foetal pain as evidenced from the JAMA, which concludes a necessary presence for thalamocortical radiations.

Pain implies the onset of sentience, and sentience is a prerequisite for sapience, as a minimum prerequisite for conscientious objection by a foetus, which is a philosophical birth, whereby a foetus may initially qualify as a legal victim that may be represented by legal proxy.

Otherwise, by constitution and philosophical reason, prior to birth, the foetus is the private property of the mother, by intrinsic possession, for which privacy protections of the constitution apply.

Unborn foetal protection laws must be consistent with the constitution, and any law must define violations and penalties as consequences to actions against the mother, which may include elevated penalties for special circumstances.

you posses a very troubled mind. have you ever thought of becoming a blues musician?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How?

asking a question that has an obvious answer?

And yet the person asking to point to a right being enumerated in the Constitution and who refuses to unequivocal state that all right need not be enumerated - even after requesting people to point out a right in the Constitution - also provides an obvious answer.


.>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?

No, they do not.

See the Ninth Amendment.

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

 

[JBvM]

How?

asking a question that has an obvious answer?

And yet the person asking to point to a right being enumerated in the Constitution and who refuses to unequivocal state that all right need not be enumerated - even after requesting people to point out a right in the Constitution - also provides an obvious answer.

see this

Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?

No, they do not.

See the Ninth Amendment.

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

 

[JBvM]

And yet the person asking to point to a right being enumerated in the Constitution and who refuses to unequivocal state that all right need not be enumerated - even after requesting people to point out a right in the Constitution - also provides an obvious answer.

you appear to be lost in a cornfield full of straw men

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Temporary Side Tract "

* Hobbies Entertain Meant Resonance Knots *

you posses a very troubled mind. have you ever thought of becoming a blues musician?

Sum are incriminated with mania , with depression , with profundity bound to ranges of destinies .

Some interact passively aggressive as addle chatter that does not daunt hem , while taunting arrogance of absolute totality having conceded to precedence of the argument without an answer , literally lauding to implement illegitimate aggression against self ownership is a state of belial , which may call for less than polite candor given the pursuit of said distributed course .

Arthur Schopenhauer Quotes

Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ?

Reiterating focus , as usual - US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion .

* Found Seventy Six Sigil Scanning Traffic Interfaces *

King Crimson – In the Wake of Poseidon Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1JjOpXsJ7A

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Swing Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Hugo Black disagreed in Griswold v Connecticut. The decision was 7 - 2 in favor. The big deal was Justice Douglas, ultra liberal accused-activist Judge. Doe any of it matter?

Question
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

My Question(s): Do you stand on principle, or do you agree or disagree because of personalities involved or a judicial philosophy?

and

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

Says every citizen of the Nation has the right to pvty in his papers and stuff. Bill of Rights. But some question has come into the conversation that Lawyers client privileged might not be after Mueller s raid on several law offices

 

[rightwinger]

Swing Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Hugo Black disagreed in Griswold v Connecticut. The decision was 7 - 2 in favor. The big deal was Justice Douglas, ultra liberal accused-activist Judge. Doe any of it matter?

Question
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

My Question(s): Do you stand on principle, or do you agree or disagree because of personalities involved or a judicial philosophy?

and

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

Fourth amendment

 

[DOTR]

The Fourth Amendment is almost entirely about privacy. Actually, so is the Third Amendment, but it's not so obvious unless you really understand the background of it.

How so? If I were a constructionist or texualist, strict or loose, how would you convince me? Where is privacy mentioned?
Major Originalist like Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no right of privacy exists.

The Third Amendment and privacy?

Consider that when the Constitution was written,electronics hadn't yet been invented. No microphones, no transmitters or receivers. No technology for “bugging” someone's home.

The only way to know what conversations took place in someone's home would be to have a human being in a position to overhear them. Perhaps a soldier, there under the guise of being housed.

I do not think that the Third Amendment was merely about providing housing for soldiers. It was about putting government agents in people's homes, to spy on them.

Your capacity for making up shit is unsurpassed. And this is why a Constitution does not work with liberals. It plainly says "quartering of troops" and was plainly in response to the Quartering Acts.

Liberals aren't human. Even plain English eludes them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your capacity for making up shit is unsurpassed. And this is why a Constitution does not work with liberals. It plainly says "quartering of troops" and was plainly in response to the Quartering Acts.

Liberals aren't human. Even plain English eludes them.

What is it that you think I am making up? And is it your intention to characterize me as a “liberal”?

 

[dblack]

Your capacity for making up shit is unsurpassed. And this is why a Constitution does not work with liberals. It plainly says "quartering of troops" and was plainly in response to the Quartering Acts.

Liberals aren't human. Even plain English eludes them.

What is it that you think I am making up? And is it your intention to characterize me as a “liberal”?

The proper term is "libtard", please.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Do you even know what 'liberty' is?

Freedom from government-over-man. This is all that it means in relation to our compound Republic.

I'd add that liberty should never be spoken or written absent the term responsibility. Liberty-Responsibility. That is to say that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty and for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty- Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable.

The latter few sentences are referenced from a great book on the topic to save me some typing, but rather concise and clearly written if I do say so myself. The American ideal of 1776: the twelve basic American principles by Hamilton Abert Long, 1976.

But I assure you I'm fully capable of expanding upon it myself, if necessary.

But I will show you what a true believer in liberty is like. pay attention

Ha. You are out of your league, meat. But I'll permit you the courtesy of educating me. I like to learn. It's one of my favorite things to do. Heh heh. Show us that wisdom of yours.

I have the same conflict with the Law that Billy Clinton got passed on the Motor voters law. This was where the USSC ok the law. This did not met the States needs for Doc needed to vote.