Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[Big Bend Texas]

Gawd help us if>>>>

https://www.cdc.gov/surveillance/pdfs/Surveillance-Series-Bookleth.pdf

~S~

Completely different type of surveillance.

 

[scruffy]

Not when i drive my work truck Scruff

My commercial insurance carrier demands it sync with their GPS on board

They track my route daily, even know when i break the speed limits

~S~

Yeah. I had that OnStar thing from GM for a while. Saved my butt once. They can unlock your car by remote

 

[scruffy]

Not at the same time you're making a call or texting from it, not without some pretty heavy tech.

"Heavy" is a relative term.

It's easy peasy if you know how to do it.

But... generally... you can write your own apps, did you know that? They don't have to be approved by the provider, they'll install anyway

 

[Care4all]

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?

.

Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.

Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!

But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.

It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....

My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....

 

[buttercup]

Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.

Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!

But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.

It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....

My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....

It’s not a matter of making decisions for someone else. It’s a matter of defending the most fundamental right of all, the right to life. And being a voice for the voiceless, the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

What you’re saying only makes sense if it’s a victimless crime. But it’s not. So your post is basically akin to “I personally don’t like when people rape, but it’s not for me to decide. Raping someone is the rapist’s decision, so it should be legal.”

 

[OKTexas]

Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.

Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!

But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.

It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....

My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....

Well, at least you didn't call the child a parasite like one of you comrades did. What I fail to understand is you commies casual disregard for the life of the child. I guess you think the convenience of the mother overrides the life of the child.

.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.

Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!

But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.

It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....

My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....

That's very noble of you, and you're right, a woman should have the right to decide what to do in her own affairs, but, it's not the scotus job to force states into medical procedures, which, they actually did not. They simply said that people have a right to privacy, and the left, in turn, took that to mean abortion was a constitutional right. That's not what scotus did. They can't grant rights, and they can't make law.


Since the left said right to privacy = right to abortion, scotus decided that the question of abortion was not up to the federal government, it was up to the states.

Nobody wants to control women. I've said it before, a woman can do whatever she wants to her body, and nobody will say a word, with the exception of abortion, which involves another life, then they push back against that.

Giving the federal government unfettered power to force states into things that the constitution doesn't give them the power to do is a bad idea because eventually, the other power is going to use that to make laws that you are opposed to, and you'll be stuck with them, and wanting states rights.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

No, the Patriot Act violates the Constitution and should never have been passed.

And Obama should never have renewed it either.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, they are human, and without these development stages occurring in the mother, there would be no humans breathing and walking earth.

Do I want these girls and young women to choose abortions.... Heck no!

But that is not up to me! It's such a personal situation that is up to her, and her doctor, and her mate, or husband, and her god, her pastor....etc.

It's not for me to decide. I have no right to even know she is pregnant early on, or what goes on in these women's bedrooms or household or in her Doctors office.... She has a right to privacy, and I am fine with the decision by the justices in Roe v Wade....because I should not be the one making these medical decisions for her, in something that affects her, for the next 20 years of her life, if she even lives through a pregnancy or dies in childbirth.... Those decisions are hers to make, early on....

My job is to let her and all the girls know that there are other choices, that we will be there to help 24/7 if the women decide to keep their pregnancies....

But you’re not there for pregnant women. No universal health care, no maternity leaves, no job security, no subsidized day care.

Toss in the lowest minimum wage and worst employee protections in the first world, as well as the highest rate of maternal death in childbirth and highest infant mortality rate, you’re not taking care of women having babies now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Do we?

Yes, but that is piss poor reasoning to make abortion a national issue.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, but that is piss poor reasoning to make abortion a national issue.

That is the whole point, it should not be a "national issue" but a personal one instead.
No legislator, judge, cops, any male, or even any other woman has any standing to say or do anything other than what the mother decides.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The 4th is very specific, if they wanted to protect an overarching blanket right to privacy they would have specified it.

You can infer lots of things, just about anything in fact, that doesn't make the inference valid.

So the marital right to privacy is no longer valid? I thought subsequent court cases have reinforced the original ruling.

And what do you call the right to keep the government out of your home, your "papers", essentially your business (as in private affairs that is no concern of theirs)? You don't think that meets the definition of privacy?

The 2nd amendment has been a source of contention since it's ratification. As a part of the Bill of Rights which enumerates specific rights that "the people" have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, the argument has been made that the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" pertains to the government (the State) and does not and was never intended to actually to the people. In other words, that's it's not an individual right which to me and many others makes no sense when you consider that the rest of Amendments specifically mention rights "of the people" or in the case of the 6th "the accused", etc.

This [legal] opinion was the law of the land until 2008 when the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller established that the right to keep & bear arms is indeed a personal right.

Had the amendment been worded differently, then perhaps we wouldn't have had over a century of debate on something that to a lot of people was obvious if not in the language of the amendment itself, then in context of the entire Bill of Rights.

Also I previously mentioned the Katz case in which Justice Brandeis' s dessent in Olmstead was used to help overturn that ruling which stated that warrants were not needed for wiretaps of a payphone. Did not Katz establish that a reasonable expectation of privacy is something that "the people" have, that a right to privacy attaches to a person, not to a place (a payphone in this case).

So taking all of the previous SCOTUS rulings and case law I'm not sure upon what basis it is said that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the privacy of "the people" simply because it's not mentioned by name or called privacy.

I just assumed that the case/argument claiming that the Constitution doesn't contain an explicit right of privacy was a lot stronger than it appears to be, or maybe I just haven't seen anyone do a good job yet of presenting that side of the argument.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What you’re saying only makes sense if it’s a victimless crime.

Except it's not a crime. At least not yet.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

So the marital right to privacy is no longer valid? I thought subsequent court cases have reinforced the original ruling.

And what do you call the right to keep the government out of your home, your "papers", essentially your business (as in private affairs that is no concern of theirs)? You don't think that meets the definition of privacy?

The 2nd amendment has been a source of contention since it's ratification. As a part of the Bill of Rights which enumerates specific rights that "the people" have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, the argument has been made that the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" pertains to the government (the State) and does not and was never intended to actually to the people. In other words, that's it's not an individual right which to me and many others makes no sense when you consider that the rest of Amendments specifically mention rights "of the people" or in the case of the 6th "the accused", etc.

This [legal] opinion was the law of the land until 2008 when the landmark Supreme Court case District of Columbia v Heller established that the right to keep & bear arms is indeed a personal right.

Had the amendment been worded differently, then perhaps we wouldn't have had over a century of debate on something that to a lot of people was obvious if not in the language of the amendment itself, then in context of the entire Bill of Rights.

Also I previously mentioned the Katz case in which Justice Brandeis' s dessent in Olmstead was used to help overturn that ruling which stated that warrants were not needed for wiretaps of a payphone. Did not Katz establish that a reasonable expectation of privacy is something that "the people" have, that a right to privacy attaches to a person, not to a place (a payphone in this case).

So taking all of the previous SCOTUS rulings and case law I'm not sure upon what basis it is said that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the privacy of "the people" simply because it's not mentioned by name or called privacy.

I just assumed that the case/argument claiming that the Constitution doesn't contain an explicit right of privacy was a lot stronger than it appears to be, or maybe I just haven't seen anyone do a good job yet of presenting that side of the argument.

You sure did waste a whole lot of effort for nothing, no, I didn't say that.

The sanctity of the home is grounded in both English Common law and English statutory law going back as far as the says of the Magna Charta upon which our legal system is founded.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You sure did waste a whole lot of effort for nothing, no, I didn't say that.

The sanctity of the home is grounded in both English Common law and English statutory law going back as far as the says of the Magna Charta upon which our legal system is founded.

How is it a waste? It wasn't for me.

What does "sanctity of the home" have to do with what I said? Our constitution doesn't mention "sanctity of the home" but it's understood to exist correct? Due to the 3rd, 4th and other amendments?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The 2nd amendment has been a source of contention since it's ratification. As a part of the Bill of Rights which enumerates specific rights that "the people" have that the government is not allowed to infringe upon, the argument has been made that the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" pertains to the government (the State) and does not and was never intended to actually to the people. In other words,

The government is not "The People" and never has been so this argument fails on it's face. Scalia explains this in detail the Heller decision along with all the historical references he provided.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

How is it a waste? It wasn't for me.

It certainly was since you were arguing against something I never stated.

Privacy rights have and always will be limited by such things as time, manner, and place.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The government is not "The People" and never has been so this argument fails on it's face. Scalia explains this in detail the Heller decision along with all the historical references he provided.

I agree, but that hasn't prevented over a century worth of attestations and rulings to the contrary.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I agree, but that hasn't prevented over a century worth of attestations and rulings to the contrary.

We've had a lot of bad rulings by activist judges over the years who ignored The Constitution to further their own political or personal beliefs.

To me, that should warrant being removed from the bench as it is a violation of their oath.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It certainly was since you were arguing against something I never stated.

Privacy rights have and always will be limited by such things as time, manner, and place.

I'm not arguing against you specifically, I'm posting my understanding of the situation and law, asking for your feedback in most cases.

But you did say this

The 4th is very specific, if they wanted to protect an overarching blanket right to privacy they would have specified it.

What do you mean by overarching?