Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[danielpalos]

"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations..."

show me your emanated penumbra.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

Ahh, and Prof KG brought along her teaching assistant (Faulty Logic 101)

Ahhh, and it's so much easier to just declare something wrong than it is to prove it wrong.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Pompous Versus Pragmatic "

* Positing Legal Positivism Of Craftsmen *

Excuse me, Noah Webster, but I don't recall asking you what YOU thought the word meant; and now that you have asserted it without being asked, let me take the opportunity to tell you that I value your English "mastery" not at all. Let me also point out that you should learn the difference between "wright" and "right" before venturing to tell anyone anything about words.

If you knew the difference between " wright " and " right " and were more intuitive to recognize that the term is used with a calculated purpose , it would have also not been necessary to elucidate an all too common technical stupidity perpetrated by the anti-choice movement ( eg . aborting babies ) .

* Screwing With Linguistics And Uniform Fetish Fanatics *

I can't even respond to the gibberish masquerading as a second paragraph, because it looks like your cat was taking dictation, and I have no clue what the hell you were trying to say. I doubt it will become more valuable with actual, real words, but give it a shot.

Sometimes the term is written fetus , sometimes foetus , while feetus is an equally valid reference as transmutation of souls is simply another allusion to genetic continuance - see transmutation of soles , wherefore a faeioutys is my preferred neologism .

 

[JBvM]

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

Ahh, and Prof KG brought along her teaching assistant (Faulty Logic 101)

Ahhh, and it's so much easier to just declare something wrong than it is to prove it wrong.

Much easier to deny than to prove a point is right. Simply stating something does not make it right. Countering a statement and challenging it is demanding the person making a point -- prove the point

 

[JBvM]

But...

Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

 

[Cecilie1200]

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

Ahh, and Prof KG brought along her teaching assistant (Faulty Logic 101)

Ahhh, and it's so much easier to just declare something wrong than it is to prove it wrong.

Much easier to deny than to prove a point is right. Simply stating something does not make it right. Countering a statement and challenging it is demanding the person making a point -- prove the point

Oh, you thought your pathetic posts were challenging and demanding something? Faulty English 101.

 

[JBvM]

Oh, you thought your pathetic posts were challenging and demanding something? Faulty English 101.

"it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice" - a Cecilie1200 Imbecility

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, you thought your pathetic posts were challenging and demanding something? Faulty English 101.

"it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice" - a Cecilie1200 Imbecility

"This is stupid. No, I can't explain how. Just believe me!" - every imbecilic post JBvM ever puts up

 

[JBvM]

Oh, you thought your pathetic posts were challenging and demanding something? Faulty English 101.

"it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice" - a Cecilie1200 Imbecility

"This is stupid. No, I can't explain how. Just believe me!" - every imbecilic post JBvM ever puts up

Okay, when the Freedom Riders and others challenged state laws -- Jimmie Crow and others -- I guess you see that as no business of the Feds to get involved with.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

NOT LITERALLY JBvM

1. Free exercise religion includes not being required to prove or justify your beliefs
in order to have them. So your faith in Jesus, God, LGBT, or marriage is your own business.

Govt cannot regulate that, or impose "due process" making you defend your beliefs
unless you have committed some crime or abuse/violation of civil/criminal law where Govt steps in.

Such as if you commit murder, then try to blame it on religion, the act of murder is already
against the law, and legal process is applied. You don't have a "right to private free exercise of religion"
in cases where your actions violate the law or rights of others.
This is where the Catholic church/priests did NOT have private rights to exercise their religious beliefs or policies
AFTER child abuse had been reported and/or occurred which requires govt intervention and process.

2. By the Fourth Amendment you have the right to be secure in your persons houses and effects AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OR SEIZURES (which require a warrant).

3. By the Fifth Amendment you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself
or be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

4. By the 10th Amendment rights and duties not delegated to Federal Govt
by the 18 Enumerated powers in the Constitution or by Constitutional Amendment
are RESERVED to people or states.

NOTE: where "right to privacy" had evolved from Roe V Wade
the real issue was Substantive Due Process that would be violated
by government trying to enforce bans on abortion and investigate.
the process of defense, such as determining and arguing if there
were "mitigating circumstances" would ALREADY impose too much
and deprive someone's rights or what was referred to as "privacy."

The issue is REALLY "due process."

Such as if gun regulations require mental health screening of
ALL citizens to be fair, but this process in itself would INTRUDE
on law abiding citizens not shown to pose threat or have committed any crime.
So this is argued as already infringing on someone's rights.

That infringement is where people are calling it "right to privacy."

In constitutional terms, it can be called
* rights reserved to people or states (which govt has no business interfering in)
* right to due process or not to be deprived of liberty or rights without due process
* right to security in our persons houses and effects from
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES or seizures

So "right to privacy" is not DIRECTLY or LITERALLY in the constitution
but the equivalent concepts can be derived from other principles therein.

 

[Valerie]

starting with the 4th:



"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."

 

[Valerie]

note to "pro-life" phony sanctimony government THUGS:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

 

[Valerie]

when you vote, you are absolutely granted the right to privacy. you are not required - by law - to have anybody see your vote behind that curtain or little cubicle or make you reveal your vote.

that same 'right' extends to what goes on within the walls of a private home or a doctor's office.

i'd attach the right to privacy to having equal protection under the law.

@ your sig.

i'd been wracking my brain over who he reminds me of and that is it! lmao

 

[emilynghiem]

note to "pro-life" phony sanctimony government THUGS:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

Dear Valerie Prolife belivers in right to life
count the unborn person as having equal right to this security.

Because both the BELIEFS of the prochoice and prolife should
be counted equally, so as not to discriminate by either creed,
this means that laws should respect BOTH the BELIEFS about
the rights of the mother/woman and the BELIEFS about
the rights of the unborn, even if people disagree on these BELIEFS.

That's by the First Amendment where Govt cannot establish or
prohibit "beliefs" included under "free exercise of religion."
and Civil Rights laws against Discrimination by Creed.

Both prochoice and prolife believers are equally wrong for
abusing Govt to impose one belief at the expense of other beliefs.

The laws and rulings should be NEUTRAL and represent people
of all beliefs equally instead of discriminating against one side's creed or another.

Or that's violating other Constitutional laws.
The Govt is responsible for upholding and protecting ALL rights,
not "disparaging" some rights for others (which is against
the 9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and also the Code of Ethics
for Govt Service:
Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion).

So if a law or ruling is poorly written, where it indirectly causes OTHER unconstitutional conflicts in trying to defend other constitutional rights or principles, that's still not constitutional. This is why I believe in resolving all such conflicts in advance, to ensure legislation and reforms truly represent the public interest and include all people of all beliefs,
where policy issues involve either religious or political beliefs -- because Govt cannot be abused to compel individuals to change or compromise their beliefs, but must be by their free choice or consent, or it's violating other Constitutional principles and process.

 

[Third Party]

when you vote, you are absolutely granted the right to privacy. you are not required - by law - to have anybody see your vote behind that curtain or little cubicle or make you reveal your vote.

that same 'right' extends to what goes on within the walls of a private home or a doctor's office.

i'd attach the right to privacy to having equal protection under the law.

@ your sig.

i'd been wracking my brain over who he reminds me of and that is it! lmao

Or John Goodman

 

[Third Party]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

 

[emilynghiem]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

Third Party by the Fifth Amendment
you have the right NOT to incriminate yourself.
With rules on Counsel and Defense, there are
rules on Attorney-Client privilege.
This is part of due process of laws, not to
be deprived of liberty with a prescribed process.

NOTE: How I think this should be clarified or reformed --
if you invoke the right to remain silent, then you should lose
your ability to have a direct say in the outcome or sentencing.
If you want your defense paid for by the govt, this should require
you to cooperate with authorities and not mislead, misrepresent
or withhold information if you want a direct say and equal right to
CONSENT to the legal or judicial outcome. That way, you can still
choose not to incriminate yourself, but you will face the consequences.
If you are part of a group that committed a crime, as long as the group
works out a restitution plan and agrees to the penalty, it's possible not to
require the group to reveal who did what, as long as the victims of the crime
are satisfied with the restitution and corrections. I would make it a requirement
that if you want assistance with counsel, you should be required not to obstruct
justice or due process but agree to work out solutions with authorities in order
to preserve your rights under law. If you want to give that up by taking the Fifth,
then the Govt should take over responsibility for your outcome. If you want to
appeal or participate in decisions, then this should require cooperation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

NOT LITERALLY JBvM

1. Free exercise religion includes not being required to prove or justify your beliefs
in order to have them. So your faith in Jesus, God, LGBT, or marriage is your own business.

Govt cannot regulate that, or impose "due process" making you defend your beliefs
unless you have committed some crime or abuse/violation of civil/criminal law where Govt steps in.

Such as if you commit murder, then try to blame it on religion, the act of murder is already
against the law, and legal process is applied. You don't have a "right to private free exercise of religion"
in cases where your actions violate the law or rights of others.
This is where the Catholic church/priests did NOT have private rights to exercise their religious beliefs or policies
AFTER child abuse had been reported and/or occurred which requires govt intervention and process.

2. By the Fourth Amendment you have the right to be secure in your persons houses and effects AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES OR SEIZURES (which require a warrant).

3. By the Fifth Amendment you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself
or be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

4. By the 10th Amendment rights and duties not delegated to Federal Govt
by the 18 Enumerated powers in the Constitution or by Constitutional Amendment
are RESERVED to people or states.

NOTE: where "right to privacy" had evolved from Roe V Wade
the real issue was Substantive Due Process that would be violated
by government trying to enforce bans on abortion and investigate.
the process of defense, such as determining and arguing if there
were "mitigating circumstances" would ALREADY impose too much
and deprive someone's rights or what was referred to as "privacy."

The issue is REALLY "due process."

Such as if gun regulations require mental health screening of
ALL citizens to be fair, but this process in itself would INTRUDE
on law abiding citizens not shown to pose threat or have committed any crime.
So this is argued as already infringing on someone's rights.

That infringement is where people are calling it "right to privacy."

In constitutional terms, it can be called
* rights reserved to people or states (which govt has no business interfering in)
* right to due process or not to be deprived of liberty or rights without due process
* right to security in our persons houses and effects from
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES or seizures

So "right to privacy" is not DIRECTLY or LITERALLY in the constitution
but the equivalent concepts can be derived from other principles therein.

Very well stated, yet, there are opinions which conflict with your assessment:

The idea of Originalism/Textualism is that the Constitution means no more or less than what it meant to those who originally wrote and ratified it. This is seen as a counter-approach to the “living Constitution” idea where the text is interpreted in light of current times, culture and society.

What is Originalism/Textualism? - Lexology

[I'm inclined to support the Living Constitution theory]

 

[danielpalos]

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?

We have a First Amendment; we know the right wing only cares about natural rights in abortion threads.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

Yeah, 'cause Law & Order is always exactly factually correct.