Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[JBvM]

Liberty is a form of privacy. We merely clarified it for the right wing.

Huh?

The liberties the colonists were insisting they had, were English/British ones. The claim was that the forefathers brought them along as loyal subjects.

We also have State Constitutions. What are You talking about.

Yes we do.

all state constitutions came after the subjects/colonists revolted and became citizens. The liberties they were claiming precede the revolt

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, the people who insisted that the limitations of government and the requirements on the government to respect the people's rights were correct. We see all the time how the government and its worshippers try to weasel around and usurp control of people's lives even with the Bill of Rights in place. Imagine how much worse it would be if we couldn't point to specific phrases in the law and say, "You can't do that because SEE?!"

you mean like interfering in bedrooms and in women's bodies?

please do not try and make this about current arguments on partisan issues

Please do not try to make killing babies about "women's bodies". You are welcome to be as biologically and medically ignorant as you like, and you're welcome to be as proud of your ignorance as you like, but you do not get to redefine reality for those of us who are actually educated and able to think.

You will NEVER, EVER be able to have a conclusive "Aha! I win and abortion is GOOD!" moment by trying to play this card. It will only work on people who agree with you because they're as piss-stupid and amoral as you are.

Furthermore, I was not the one who brought up "current arguments on partisan issues". YOU did. So also please do not do stupid shit and then try to accuse ME of it. Maybe you just have a guilty conscience because you know you resemble that remark.

 

[JBvM]

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

 

[JBvM]

Please do not try to make killing babies...

STOP!

see:
US Constitution > Judicial Interpretation >
Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Hiding It If You Can "

* Like Privacy From The Tax Man *

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.

I think the first part says it all! We all have a constitutional right to our privacy, not to be violated without due process.

Which phrases protect ones wright to privacy against the enforcement of illegitimate laws , such as laws that might roughly violate non aggression principles ?

Apparently , a contingency to a wright to privacy exists only where one is able to keep behaviors private that would otherwise have been made illegal by legislators ( perhaps representing a majority ) , for example where one could be imprisoned or fined for a litany of sexual proclivities , or induced alternative conscious states , should puritan theocrats decide to implement their own schemes of social perversion .

Another example is where the left promotes a public narrative that roe v wade is based upon a " wright to privacy " ( which it is not ) and " it's the woman's body " ( from secure in their persons ) ; however , if abortion were to be made illegal by revising the 14th amendment , then probable cause would be available for any clinic suspected of offering abortive services whether or not the woman was able to to conceal that she was pregnant prior to entering the facility .

 

[danielpalos]

Liberty is a form of privacy. We merely clarified it for the right wing.

Huh?

The liberties the colonists were insisting they had, were English/British ones. The claim was that the forefathers brought them along as loyal subjects.

We also have State Constitutions. What are You talking about.

Yes we do.

all state constitutions came after the subjects/colonists revolted and became citizens. The liberties they were claiming precede the revolt

Natural rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Language Obfuscation "

* Double Speak Conflagration *

Natural rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Use of the term " natural " is an abuse for any basic understanding of nature or natural freedoms .

Perhaps the term should be revised to " divine " , as that is the entire basis of its assertion .

 

[danielpalos]

" Language Obfuscation "

* Double Speak Conflagration *

Natural rights are found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Use of the term " natural " is an abuse for any basic understanding of nature or natural freedoms .

Perhaps the term should be revised to " divine " , as that is the entire basis of its assertion .

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fundamental Indifference "

* Selling Philosophical Tripe *

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

I have zero clue as to the purpose or intended meaning of those statements , as " natural " " rights ( sic ) " does not hold any relevance in my schema of understanding .

An allusion to " divine " " rights ( sic ) " would be a more correct descriptor for the assertion otherwise paraded as " natural rights " .

 

[danielpalos]

" Fundamental Indifference "

* Selling Philosophical Tripe *

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

I have zero clue as to the purpose or intended meaning of those statements , as " natural " " rights ( sic ) " does not hold any relevance in my schema of understanding .

An allusion to " divine " " rights ( sic ) " would be a more correct descriptor for the assertion otherwise paraded as " natural rights " .

only if we need to quibble. Our Constitution is express, not implied.

 

[JBvM]

The Bill of Rights appear to have been iterative in its creation. With documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced which rights were covered. With the Declaration of Rights being in turn influenced strongly by the Petition of Rights from the 1620s and the British Bill of Rights in the 1680s with a little Magna Carta sprinkled in.

There was also likely some immediate reaction to the abuses under by the British enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

In my opinion, the founders were walking an interesting tight rope......trying to assure folks like George Mason that the new government wouldn't be a new iteration of British tyranny while at the same time trying to frame their constitution and their laws in the language of the law used by the British......in an apply a patina of legitimacy to the British as well. It was also the legal tradition that the founder would have been most familiar.

The strong influence of British legal documents would then make a fair amount of sense in the creation of the Bill of Rights.

They were British Colonists, Loyal Subjects petitioning - at first. Some of the leading protesters remained loyal subjects and were treated badly, even though some of them would not turn on their fellow colonists, but refused to renounce or take new pledges

case in pint Calvinist minister John J. Zubly

They were asserting rights ad liberties of their English/British roots

 

[JBvM]

In 1958, in the case of NAACP v. Alabama, the SCOTUS ruled:

"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance …"

I won't publish a wall of text, but use that as a starting point to discuss the subject.

Puzzled here. I see Justice Douglas' words. Were they included in the Alabama case?

 

[JBvM]

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

would 'natural born' apply to c-section births? nothing 'natural' about those is there? It's human beings interfering with nature, isn't it?

 

[danielpalos]

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

would 'natural born' apply to c-section births? nothing 'natural' about those is there? It's human beings interfering with nature, isn't it?

if you just want to argue; is there any reason to quibble?

 

[JBvM]

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

would 'natural born' apply to c-section births? nothing 'natural' about those is there? It's human beings interfering with nature, isn't it?

if you just want to argue; is there any reason to quibble?

you do know the framers argued over words too?

Over the years, people have argued over natural born citizen ... Did you ever engage in any of those argument(s)?

according to your claims - would a person born of a c-section (which is not a natural things) - accrue these so-called natural rights, that are supposedly accrued to what you refer to as, the natural born?

 

[longknife]

" Fundamental Indifference "

* Selling Philosophical Tripe *

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

I have zero clue as to the purpose or intended meaning of those statements , as " natural " " rights ( sic ) " does not hold any relevance in my schema of understanding .

An allusion to " divine " " rights ( sic ) " would be a more correct descriptor for the assertion otherwise paraded as " natural rights " .

only if we need to quibble. Our Constitution is express, not implied.

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

 

[JBvM]

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

give us 3 examples of legislation that came down from 'the bench' and do you mean all courts of just the federal ones?

 

[longknife]

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

give us 3 examples of legislation that came down from 'the bench' and do you mean all courts of just the federal ones?

Roe vs Wade.
Miranda
ACA

 

[JBvM]

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

give us 3 examples of legislation that came down from 'the bench' and do you mean all courts of just the federal ones?

Roe vs Wade.
Miranda
ACA

Interesting choice. Predictable

allow me please to address them separately

a link: Legislating Policy from the Bench: Five Examples – Defending People

the right wing is complaining not about the Court improperly exercising its power of judicial review, but rather failing to do so. (Which explains why “To the Christian right, ‘Dred Scott‘ turns out to be a code word for ‘Roe v. Wade.’“) If there were no power of judicial review, Kelo, Korematsu, and Plessy would have turned out the same for the litigants (and for society) as they did.

Okay, so forget about Kelo, Korematsu, and Plessy. Aren’t Roe and Dred Scott (assume for the sake of argument that both were bad decisions) evidence that courts should keep their noses out of policy and let legislatures decide what the law is?

Only if we believe that the state should be able to search our homes without warrants (Mapp v. Ohio), then try us for peacefully expressing unpopular views (Edwards v. South Carolina) or for having unsanctioned sex (Lawrence v. Texas); that at trial we should be unrepresented (Gideon v. Wainwright) and should have no right to a jury (Duncan v. Louisiana); and that the state should be allowed to use illegally obtained evidence against us (Weeks), comment on our silence at trial (Griffin v. California), prove the case without allowing confrontation of witnesses (Crawford v. Washington), and execute us, notwithstanding the lack of a dead body (Coker v. Georgia), even if we are mentally retarded children (Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons).

When the courts exercise their power of review, the people win a few and lose a few.​

I am a big fan of arguing judicial review with folks like you, but this one lays it out more simply so...

If right-wingers were intellectually honest, they would say that “legislating from the bench” means thwarting the will of the people’s democratically elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches. If a court is passive, it’ll let the other branches of government do what they want; the outcome with a court that does not legislate from the bench is the same as it would be with no judicial review, or with no court at all. The test for real judicial activism is this: absent judicial review, would the result have been different? This definition and this test have the virtue of not being in the eye of the beholder. Whether the courts have allowed the other branches to do what they want is easy to determine.​