Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[Big Bend Texas]

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

What do you mean by overarching?

As I said, privacy rights are always limited by such things as time, manner, and place.

 

[sparky]

So the marital right to privacy is no longer valid?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.

I've read 2nd debates , right on down to interpreting punctuation.

Much ado seems to go down the semantics rathole......

We live in a country who's governing forces have grown exponentially since it's rebel doctrine debuted.

That it doesn't work for them anymore is evident in the many ways they actively seek to circumvent it

~S~

 

[Dragonlady]

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.”

A fetus is not a person and has no rights. You are prepared to give the fetus more rights than woman who will be forced to raise the child it may become.

You’re giving the unborn more rights and protections than he/she will have at birth. At that point the mother can refuse medical treatment for the child, and assert parental rights over their life. You’re adamant about retaining THOSE rights for parents regardless of what the child might want.

 

[Rigby5]

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.”

Wrong.
The fact the fetus dies if support withdrawn does not increase the right of the fetus to demand that support at all.
If someone is going to die unless you give them your special blood transfusion, no one can still make you do it.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
That is a totally incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights was only to restrict the federal government, and in no way was at all intended to list individual rights.
The intent to protect individual rights did not happen until the 14th amendment, and the right to privacy is ancient, going back to British Common Law, and has always been recognized as a significant individual right.

But to use the 14th amendment, since individual rights are not specifically listed in the Constitution, you have to interpret using the Penumbra Effect.
{...
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".[2]

Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

In cases of rape and incest her ability to consent has been taken from her.

What part of that is so hard to understand?



Ring any bells?

Consenting to sex does not consent to pregnancy.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Nah, spoofing cellphone location is very easy and inexpensive.
Here is an ap that does it for $20.

{...
iMyFone AnyTo

Change GPS Location on iOS/Android​

• Instantly fake ios/android GPS location to anywhere in the world.
• Works well with location-based apps such as AR games, social platforms.
• GPS joystick to control the direction of movement flexibly.
• Import/Export GPX file to save your favorite routes.
• Change multiple iPhone locations simultaneously.
• Compatible with All iOS & Android versions.

...}

Its even easier on a computer, since GPS is not built in and you can just use Tor to echo for you.

 

[Rigby5]

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~

If you shield your GPS antenna to prevent reception, you will disappear and there will be no way to prove you did anything. It will simply seem as if you entered a tunnel or building that blocks GPS. Happens all the time.
In fact, GPS does not work in place like NYC, due to all the tall buildings.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The Constitution explicitly refused to defend or define individual rights until the 14th amendment.
That was because states already had slavery, state religions, etc., so would have been immediately on conflict with the states.
There was no way for anyone to defend or define individual rights until after the Civil War.
Attempting to defend or define individual rights earlier would have ensured 13 different countries instead of one United States.

 

[Rigby5]

As I said, privacy rights are always limited by such things as time, manner, and place.

If you mean you lose some privacy when you enter a federal building, drive a car, or board an airplane, I would agree.

 

[Dragonlady]

Bullshit, if one does not exercise one's right they have no right. A pregnant mother already consented, unless she was raped which is a heinous crime.

Consent to sex is not consent to a lifetime of parenting a child, or all of the financial, parental and public obligations that puts upon you. A man is only required to provide financial support to a child until they turn 18, but mothers are on the hook for pregnancy, delivery, 24 hr. care, feeding, housing and clothing the child until adulthood. And most guys skip on their financial obligations at the first opportunity, including the married ones, if the marriage ends. But if a woman opts out of the pregnancy, knowing she'll be on her own, knowing that her existing children will suffer is she loses her job, or that their family needs a second income just to eat and keep a roof over their heads, she's a selfish uncaring *****.

There is absolutely no difference between a fetus conceived because of rape or incest, from one conceived with love, so if it's OK to terminate the pregnancy if the pregnancy wasn't the woman's or the girl's "fault", why is it not OK to terminate the pregnancy if the mother will be on the streets, with her family, unable to provide for any of them.

You need to look long and hard at the demographics of who is getting an "elective" abortion in today's US economy. It's not a bunch of callous horny party girls, it's 60% young married women with one or more children, who are already living in poverty, or on the edge of poverty.

Instead looking at the reasons for all of these young women to terminate their pregnancies, you believe the lie that they're selfish, wanton, and lacking in morals.

 

[Leo123]

Consent to sex is not consent to a lifetime of parenting a child, or all of the financial, parental and public obligations that puts upon you. A man is only required to provide financial support to a child until they turn 18, but mothers are on the hook for pregnancy, delivery, 24 hr. care, feeding, housing and clothing the child until adulthood. And most guys skip on their financial obligations at the first opportunity, including the married ones, if the marriage ends. But if a woman opts out of the pregnancy, knowing she'll be on her own, knowing that her existing children will suffer is she loses her job, or that their family needs a second income just to eat and keep a roof over their heads, she's a selfish uncaring *****.

There is absolutely no difference between a fetus conceived because of rape or incest, from one conceived with love, so if it's OK to terminate the pregnancy if the pregnancy wasn't the woman's or the girl's "fault", why is it not OK to terminate the pregnancy if the mother will be on the streets, with her family, unable to provide for any of them.

You need to look long and hard at the demographics of who is getting an "elective" abortion in today's US economy. It's not a bunch of callous horny party girls, it's 60% young married women with one or more children, who are already living in poverty, or on the edge of poverty.

Instead looking at the reasons for all of these young women to terminate their pregnancies, you believe the lie that they're selfish, wanton, and lacking in morals.

I never said it’s not ok for a woman to abort. But, why with all the contraceptives available are there still unwanted pregnancies? Your stupid rant is obnoxious to me. I raised 2 kids changed diapers, fed formula, lost sleep. One had colic as well. My wife worked for a time and I was a stay at home dad and got them off to school, took them to sports, etc. So you can shove your androphobia.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I never said it’s not ok for a woman to abort. But, why with all the contraceptives available are there still unwanted pregnancies?

Because NO contraceptive measure is 100% effective except for abstinence and abstinence isn't a viable option for most adults in relationships who WANT to have sex without it resulting in an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Dragonlady]

I never said it’s not ok for a woman to abort. But, why with all the contraceptives available are there still unwanted pregnancies? Your stupid rant is obnoxious to me. I raised 2 kids changed diapers, fed formula, lost sleep. One had colic as well. My wife worked for a time and I was a stay at home dad and got them off to school, took them to sports, etc. So you can shove your androphobia.

Because contraception fails - all of the time. Because not everyone can take the Pill and even that isn't foolproof. Because birth control prescriptions require a bunch of mostly unnecessary, expensive, annual tests which isn't necessarily paid for by employer health care, if their employer objects on religious grounds. But Viagara is covered.

Contrary to often stated conservatives lies, there are not enough Planned Parenthoods throughout the USA to provide free birth control to all of the poor women with no medical insurance in the USA.

One only need to look at the statistics, and stop looking at anecdotal evidence.

How Much Child Support the Average Single Parent Really Gets

Read child support statistics that shed light on how many single parents receive child support, how much, and how often.

www.verywellfamily.com

Only 43% of single parents get all of the child support ordered by the courts, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it's the wealthy and middle class who are meeting their obligations, not the low income men. Child support is the first thing to go unpaid when times get tough.

One in four American women, will have an abortion by age 40. They will continue to have abortions whether they are safe and legal, or not. You will never end it.

 

[sparky]

If you shield your GPS antenna to prevent reception, you will disappear and there will be no way to prove you did anything.

i put the tin foil from my lunch over it today....didn't get alerts! ~S~

 

[Leo123]

Because contraception fails - all of the time. Because not everyone can take the Pill and even that isn't foolproof. Because birth control prescriptions require a bunch of mostly unnecessary, expensive, annual tests which isn't necessarily paid for by employer health care, if their employer objects on religious grounds. But Viagara is covered.

Contrary to often stated conservatives lies, there are not enough Planned Parenthoods throughout the USA to provide free birth control to all of the poor women with no medical insurance in the USA.

One only need to look at the statistics, and stop looking at anecdotal evidence.

How Much Child Support the Average Single Parent Really Gets

Read child support statistics that shed light on how many single parents receive child support, how much, and how often.

www.verywellfamily.com

Only 43% of single parents get all of the child support ordered by the courts, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it's the wealthy and middle class who are meeting their obligations, not the low income men. Child support is the first thing to go unpaid when times get tough.

One in four American women, will have an abortion by age 40. They will continue to have abortions whether they are safe and legal, or not. You will never end it.

That's ridiculous. Contraception does not fail 'all the time.' The rest of your post seems to promote women being nothing more than sex objects or sex fiends. You seem to have a deep seated hatred of men as well. The far left liberal relative morality and their lies about men have caused this problem. You all should be ashamed of yourselves but, I fear, you have no shame. Sex is not just an act you know. Stop promoting irresponsible sex and stop trying to excuse it.

 

[Rigby5]

I never said it’s not ok for a woman to abort. But, why with all the contraceptives available are there still unwanted pregnancies? Your stupid rant is obnoxious to me. I raised 2 kids changed diapers, fed formula, lost sleep. One had colic as well. My wife worked for a time and I was a stay at home dad and got them off to school, took them to sports, etc. So you can shove your androphobia.

Contraceptives are about as effective as mRNA covid vaccines, which is not saying much.
Considering how often people normally have sex, abortion is absolutely necessary.
And you are also forgetting how painful and body changing pregnancy is.
Just taking care of the children is minor in comparison.

 

[Leo123]

Contraceptives are about as effective as mRNA covid vaccines, which is not saying much.
Considering how often people normally have sex, abortion is absolutely necessary.
And you are also forgetting how painful and body changing pregnancy is.
Just taking care of the children is minor in comparison.

I watched when my wife had a Cesarian I am fully aware of that. As a loving husband and father I made sure both her and my precious child were taken care of personally by me. So screw your pious feminist shit. That is what most men would do. Admit it you just hate men.

 

[Rigby5]

I watched when my wife had a Cesarian I am fully aware of that. As a loving husband and father I made sure both her and my precious child were taken care of personally by me. So screw your pious feminist shit. That is what most men would do. Admit it you just hate men.

Caesarian is the easy way.

 

[Leo123]

Caesarian is the easy way.

Been there during normal birth too. Also took care of wife and kids then too. Now you can stop your stupid pious, Feminist bullshit. BTW there are many methods of contraception. Injection, patch, ring, condom, pill. All over 90% effective even when not used perfectly so you can stuff that lie too. Just admit you hate men and move on. The best contraception is natural family planning, 99% effective. Basically, women have to stop thinking they are exactly the same as men. Feminists have led you down a bad path by preaching hatred and envy of men. Tell you what, next time you see a good looking guy and want to screw him, make sure you are up on your contraceptives because, obviously, you are not very responsible and would throw a human life away with a whim. Also, stop preaching your free sex bullshit to young girls.