Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[postman]

And on that latter note, I suppose it is a legislative determination as to the point at which a “life” becomes a “person.”

If a legislature wanted to, they could grant personage to a dog.

 

[bodecea]

There are no broad privacy protections in our constitution, never have been, only limited rights that are circumstance dependent.

Limited rights, eh? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[postman]

Since we left it to the SCOTUS to address cases and controversies concerning the Constitution, ..

Actually it was judicial activism that grabbed that power. The Constitution is silent on the issue of it's own interpretation.

 

[postman]

Limited rights, eh? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Although not part of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence made clear that man is given certain inalienable rights by his creator.

Amendment IX - “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That ^ doesn’t follow in ANY way from what I posted.

It absolutely does. If creating a federal government and giving that federal government certain authority over certain things implies enough power to do the job, then the federal government under the AoC would have possessed enough power to do its job. But it didn't. That led to Hamilton convening the Annapolis Convention, to improve upon the Articles. But ultimately, it was deemed that they had to be wholly replaced in order to establish a stronger federal government that did have the power to do the job it was to be given.

So it's possible to both charge the federal government with the responsibility to do something, and also fail to grant it sufficient power to do it. And indeed, who much power may be required to fulfill a certain objective is the continuing question for public debate.

The degree to which a duty is fulfilled will always depend on the amount of power we want to give the federal government. Let's take national defense. That's the federal government's job. And we expect it to accomplish that objective. And doing so may require spying on American citizens. Listening to their phone calls, reading their emails, detaining them without probable cause, etc. The federal government would be able to accomplish its job more thoroughly if we granted it power to do those things. But we withhold that power from the federal government.

It's really no different in any area of life. When you go to work, your company may give you the obligation to fulfill certain duties, but they may only give you limited power to accomplish those objectives. They expect you to achieve your objectives within specified limitations and criteria. Maybe you think those limitations are impractical. Maybe you're right. But that doesn't mean you are inherently imbued with whatever broad power you think is necessary.

 

[task0778]

We created a constitutional republic of limited and enumerated powers but we didn’t create a eunuch. Implicitly it has to have at least sufficient power to do its job.

But there is supposed to be a balance of powers, and IMHO the creation of a constitutional right that isn't in the Constitution shouldn't be up to the 9 unelected justices in the Supreme Court, especially if there is no fundamental basis for that decision. And I don't think an implied right is good enough, absent prior case history to support the decision. It shouldn't be the flimsy excuse that the Griswold case used, or that the Roe case was built on. IOW, it's about ******* time the Congress started doing their job. Or leave it up to the individual states.

Griswold was about the legal civil right to contraceptives, which I support. In my view everyone should have the right to use contraceptives and no state should have the power to ban them, BUT - I don't believe that decision ought to be left to the Supreme Court. The US Congress ought to be making that decision.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Nice argument, but that fertilized clump of parasitic cells is making illegal demands on the woman's body, that she has the inherent right to deny through abortion.
God does not give anyone rights over anyone else.
If someone makes demands over anyone else that they want to deny, like a bank not handing over their money to a bank robber, then the one making the demands forfeits their rights and can be killed, just like you can shoot a bank robber if necessary.
The inherent right to life is forfeit if you make demands upon anyone else.

Wrong, there are no inherent rights that involve harming another human unless that other human is threatening your life.
Nice try though

 

[OKTexas]

Of course that is correct, but for the kid to exist long enough, the rights of the woman have to first be violated if she doe not want the kid.
Think about it.
There is no stronger instinct than maternal bonding, so if that is not enough to get the kid born, how could anyone have any greater say?

If the woman doesn't what a kid, there's many ways to avoid getting pregnant. If she fails, then she has a 9 month obligation to the life she created, if she still doesn't want the kid then it can be placed of adoption. It's called taking responsibility for you actions. Abortion is not birth control, it's taking a life.

.

 

[ThisIsMe]

But where would states get their authority from in order to outlaw any medical procedure?
The only source of legal authority is the defense of the rights of others, so states have no standing when it comes to things like Kevorkian's assisted suicide or abortion.
Any state claiming to have authority over these procedures is obviously criminal because then the legislators would essentially be practicing medicine without a license to do so.
States don't have any inherent authority to make those decisions over the choices of individuals.
It does not matter if the state legislators "deem the procedure is not good", they still have no authority or standing to say anything about it.
Whether or not the majority of voters want it or not is also irrelevant.
We are not a mobocracy, and the majority has no more authority to dictate than legislators do.
The ONLY authority legislators have is to defend the rights of their constituents, and they have no standing when it comes to fetuses, those wishing suicide, etc.

But where would states get their authority from in order to outlaw any medical procedure?

From the same authority they get the right to make any other law, from their legislature, but ultimately, from the people (consent of the governed).

You could ask that question about any law on the books.

States don't have any inherent authority to make those decisions over the choices of individuals.

See above.

It does not matter if the state legislators "deem the procedure is not good", they still have no authority or standing to say anything about it.

Sure they do, for the same reason they make any other law. We give our legislature the power to make laws, so, if they see that something is bad, they will make a law against it.

Whether or not the majority of voters want it or not is also irrelevant.

Sure it is. At the state level, governments are elected by popular votes. I agree that laws should be made in the interest of all people, but when it comes to the election of the people that make those laws, the majority is relevant.

The ONLY authority legislators have is to defend the rights of their constituents, and they have no standing when it comes to fetuses, those wishing suicide, etc

Again, we give them the authority to make laws, if you don't like the laws they make, then you vote them out, or at the least, call them, email them, get petitions together.

so states have no standing when it comes to things like Kevorkian's assisted suicide or abortion.

Sure they do, they decided that assisted suicide, and abortion, were wrong, and made laws against them, again, for the same reason they make any other laws.

Any state claiming to have authority over these procedures is obviously criminal because then the legislators would essentially be practicing medicine without a license to do so.

I disagree. They make laws about a great many things, if they make laws about pollution control in their state, it doesn't mean they are environmental experts, or if they make laws about oil drilling, that doesn't make them experts in oil production.

Ironically, if them banning abortion is akin to practicing medicine without a license, then making the procedure legal would also be akin to practicing medicine without a license.

It's also ironic that you argue that states don't have the authority to regulate private medical practices and to outlaw medical procedures, but you advocate that the federal government can make all these things the law of the land.

I just don't agree that, at the federal level, the government should be able to do anything more than what the constitution says it can. It shouldn't have the power to force the states to do medical procedures, or many other things.

Whats not spelled out by the constitution should be left to the states and the people.

Saying the federal government should have the authority to force states into things is a bad idea, because what happens when it's the other party in office?

 

[BackAgain]

If a legislature wanted to, they could grant personage to a dog.

Only in theory. And if challenged, such a legislative determination might very well fail for a wide variety of reasons.

 

[postman]

If the woman doesn't what a kid, there's many ways to avoid getting pregnant. If she fails, then she has a 9 month obligation to the life she created, if she still doesn't want the kid then it can be placed of adoption. It's called taking responsibility for you actions. Abortion is not birth control, it's taking a life.

.

What about rape or incest?

 

[BackAgain]

It absolutely does. If creating a federal government and giving that federal government certain authority over certain things implies enough power to do the job, then the federal government under the AoC would have possessed enough power to do its job. But it didn't. That led to Hamilton convening the Annapolis Convention, to improve upon the Articles. But ultimately, it was deemed that they had to be wholly replaced in order to establish a stronger federal government that did have the power to do the job it was to be given.

So it's possible to both charge the federal government with the responsibility to do something, and also fail to grant it sufficient power to do it. And indeed, who much power may be required to fulfill a certain objective is the continuing question for public debate.

The degree to which a duty is fulfilled will always depend on the amount of power we want to give the federal government. Let's take national defense. That's the federal government's job. And we expect it to accomplish that objective. And doing so may require spying on American citizens. Listening to their phone calls, reading their emails, detaining them without probable cause, etc. The federal government would be able to accomplish its job more thoroughly if we granted it power to do those things. But we withhold that power from the federal government.

It's really no different in any area of life. When you go to work, your company may give you the obligation to fulfill certain duties, but they may only give you limited power to accomplish those objectives. They expect you to achieve your objectives within specified limitations and criteria. Maybe you think those limitations are impractical. Maybe you're right. But that doesn't mean you are inherently imbued with whatever broad power you think is necessary.

No. It absolutely does not. There were many reasons to get rid of the Articles of Confederation. By crafting the Constitution, the framers sought to create a government that addressed all of those reasons and the concerns underlying them. And they sought to create a complex system of checks and balances to protect agains the prospect of governmental abuse of power. That said, they didn’t seek to hobble the government to the extent of making it powerless to do the very thing for which governments exist.

 

[postman]

Only in theory. And if challenged, such a legislative determination might very well fail for a wide variety of reasons.

The supreme court (Alito draft) said that was a matter for the legislatures.

If they want to grant personage to a dog, they have that power. Nothing in the constitution denies them that power. And it's no different than when the USSC in Citizens United v FEC granted personage to corporations.

 

[BackAgain]

But there is supposed to be a balance of powers, and IMHO the creation of a constitutional right that isn't in the Constitution shouldn't be up to the 9 unelected justices in the Supreme Court, especially if there is no fundamental basis for that decision. And I don't think an implied right is good enough, absent prior case history to support the decision. It shouldn't be the flimsy excuse that the Griswold case used, or that the Roe case was built on. IOW, it's about ******* time the Congress started doing their job. Or leave it up to the individual states.

Griswold was about the legal civil right to contraceptives, which I support. In my view everyone should have the right to use contraceptives and no state should have the power to ban them, BUT - I don't believe that decision ought to be left to the Supreme Court. The US Congress ought to be making that decision.

Again: I disagree with your conclusion but I don’t disagree with you entirely. I take it as a given that it is improper and unConstitutional for the court to undertake the act of legislating.

But that’s exactly what they did in Roe v. Wade.

If the draft Dobbs decision sticks, the Court will have corrected that error.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course that is correct, but for the kid to exist long enough, the rights of the woman have to first be violated if she doe not want the kid.
Think about it.
There is no stronger instinct than maternal bonding, so if that is not enough to get the kid born, how could anyone have any greater say?

Nice argument, but that fertilized clump of parasitic cells

This is a quote from you, just a few posts down, and is an example that is contradictory to what you just said here.
You want us to believe that there is this maternal bond, yet, you so flippantly use terms like "cells" and "tissue". How can you claim an emotional bond if you don't even believe what's growing inside the mother is a life?

 

[BackAgain]

The supreme court (Alito draft) said that was a matter for the legislatures.

If they want to grant personage to a dog, they have that power. Nothing in the constitution denies them that power. And it's no different than when the USSC in Citizens United v FEC granted personage to corporations.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Your contention is just a silly quibble.

 

[BackAgain]

The supreme court (Alito draft) said that was a matter for the legislatures.

If they want to grant personage to a dog, they have that power. Nothing in the constitution denies them that power. And it's no different than when the USSC in Citizens United v FEC granted personage to corporations.

The draft said nothing about dogs. And your quibble is entirely silly, frivolous and inconsequential. But at least it’s meaningless.

 

[postman]

You are barking up the wrong tree. Your contention is just a silly quibble.

The Constitution denied personage to blacks. Then corrected it with the 14th amendment. Congress can grant personage to whoever or whatever they want.

The legislatures of the several states, may be tempered by equal protection.

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution denied personage to blacks. Then corrected it with the 14th amendment. Congress can grant personage to whoever or whatever they want.

The legislatures of the several states, may be tempered by equal protection.

Quit your nonsensical quibbling. We aren’t discussing whether a state could grant personhood to any animals. You’re off topic.

 

[JLW]

There is no right to privacy in the constitution. The right of privacy was found in the "penumbra of rights" contained in the constitution ala Griswold and Roe. As conservative justices and strict constructionists only interpret the constitution based on what is actually contained in the document and the document does not contain the words "right to privacy," there is, based on the makeup of the current supreme court, no fundamental right to privacy. Conservatives have achieved all that they wished for.