Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[Big Bend Texas]

Limited rights, eh? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yes, limited. Privacy rights have always been limited.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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 fucking 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.

Every law is subject to constitutional challenge so we'll always have the courts making the final decisions as to constitutionality.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

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

Note the same dehumanizing language used to justify slavery.

 

[OKTexas]

None for the embryo and/or fetus that I know of, prior to being viable?

So you, like most commies, want to play a game of semantics over the stages of human development. You do realize you are referring to human beings that develop over a continuum from conception to death, RIGHT?

.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

So you, like most commies, want to play a game of semantics over the stages of human development. You do realize you are referring to human beings that develop over a continuum from conception to death, RIGHT?

.

Well, not quite, we're fully developed at around 25-28 years of age. It's a long downhill ride from there.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, not quite, we're fully developed at around 25-28 years of age. It's a long downhill ride from there.

I'm assuming you're older than that, did you learn anything yesterday or today? I sure hope ya did. Is that not part of human development?

.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I'm assuming you're older than that, did you learn anything yesterday or today? I sure hope ya did. Is that not part of human development?

.

Learning and physical/physiological development are two completely different things.

Physically and physiologically we're fully developed at between 25-28 years of age.

 

[evenflow1969]

Do you support the Patriot Act?

Because rights cannot be accepted or rejected piecemeal.

Rights must be accepted or rejected as an Indivisible whole.

Otherwise any arguments for or against them are nothing more than white noise.

The patriot act is likely these least patriotic thing that happened in a long long time. No I do not support the patrioti act.

 

[OKTexas]

Learning and physical/physiological development are two completely different things.

Physically and physiologically we're fully developed at between 25-28 years of age.

Yet we have people much older than that acting like toddlers. I think they call it arrested development. Go figure.

.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes, I familiar with the case but Roe v. Wade is not predicated on that line of decidendi. Rather, it's predicated on the Griswald line of decidendi, which goes directly to the right of privacy relative in the acquisition and use of contraceptive devices and chemicals.

Can you elaborate because I don't see how the U.S. Constitution when it was written could be that specific about something that didn't yet exist.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Sure government can legitimately violate inherent rights if necessary in order to prevent you from violating the rights of others.
For example, you have a right to life, but the police can legally shoot you dead if you are violating the rights of others by being a bank robber.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Can you elaborate because I don't see how the U.S. Constitution when it was written could be that specific about something that didn't yet exist.

Abortion has existed since long before the founding. Surgical abortions are a relatively new concept though.

They fabricated the entire argument based on a right defined nowhere in our constitution to create yet another right that didn't exist in our constitution.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Rape laws are based on the right of privacy, and yet there is no mention of privacy in the Constitution, so there obviously has to be far more individual rights than the constitution mentions.
In fact, they are infinite.

How are rape laws based on the right to privacy?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Sure government can legitimately violate inherent rights if necessary in order to prevent you from violating the rights of others.
For example, you have a right to life, but the police can legally shoot you dead if you are violating the rights of others by being a bank robber.

No, we have no right to violate the rights of others absent due process or in defense of self or others.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

How are rape laws based on the right to privacy?

They aren't, they are based on the rights of consent and prohibitions on assault.

 

[Leo123]

Your right privacy is exactly equal to your right of protection of that right.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Judge alito says Americans don't have privacy protections.

No he didn't. He correctly said we have only limited privacy rights as has always been the case.

Privacy rights nor any other right gives us a right to take the life of another absent due process or in self defense or defense of others.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Abortion has existed since long before the founding. Surgical abortions are a relatively new concept though.

They fabricated the entire argument based on a right defined nowhere in our constitution to create yet another right that didn't exist in our constitution.

But presumably a right to privacy does exist and is part of what the 4th Amendment protects? What does it mean to you, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

 

[Ringtone]

Can you elaborate because I don't see how the U.S. Constitution when it was written could be that specific about something that didn't yet exist.

When you say something, presumably you mean contraception devices and chemicals?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Your right privacy is exactly equal to your right of protection of that right.

No, not really. That has never been the case in the US.

What about rape or incest?

In both cases the pregnant mother has been denied her rights of consent.