Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Assuming this is true about Heck, he is technically wrong per judicial fiat. See post #29. The problem is the imbecilic reasoning of Roe v. Wade that extended this general constitutional penumbra of privacy to entail access to abortion against the interests of the several states and the people thereof.I just got told by a Republican running for Governor of Nevada that we do not....Tom Heck.
There are no broad privacy protections in our constitution, never have been, only limited rights that are circumstance dependent.So you say we DON'T have a right to privacy. Very very telling. How many other rights do you want to deny Americans?
Private or not there are only extremely limited circumstances that allow us to kill another human being, in or out of the womb.Assuming this is true about Heck, he is technically wrong per judicial fiat. See post #29. The problem is the imbecilic reasoning of Roe v. Wade that extended this general constitutional penumbra of privacy to entail access to abortion against the interests of the several states and the people thereof.
What a bunch of blathering BS. Douglas was merely a preview to our current President's deteriorating cognitive abilities. Both thought that a mumbling jumbo of words constitute rational thought and reasoning. Douglas should have been removed from SCOTUS before he soiled his diapers, but his political henchmen let him write this opinion so they wouldn't be ridiculed.The above is a well informed and cogent summary of the matter with one exception.
Roe v. Wade is predicated on the Griswold v. Connecticut line of decidendi regarding a supposed constitutional right of privacy.
In legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.Writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut, Douglas "used the term [more at cited the doctrine] when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific."In his opinion, Douglas "stated that the specific guarantees of the BILL OF RIGHTS have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area [i.e., the area of contraception].Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.Read more: Penumbra - Further Readings - Justice, Griswold, Holmes, and Decision - JRank Articles Penumbra - Further Readings
Griswold v. Connecticut declared that this right of general privacy is implicitly inherent to the collective penumbra of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.
Hence, the right of privacy was formally established in Griswold v. Connecticut, and in Roe v. Wade, the Court extended this penumbra of privacy to entail relatively unfettered access to abortion during the first two trimesters.
Worthy of a repeat.
Dems are gouging out their eyes trying to un-see that.
In some states it's illegal to even possess firearms in the home without a gov't issued permit.How is it possible to guarantee citizens "a right to privacy"? Lefties have been attacking the 2nd Amendment for decades that guarantees the right to keep and bear a firearm but they found some innuendo that they expanded and worked at and stretched into a impossible "right to privacy" and then they doubled down and used that bogus "right" to murder tens of millions of unborn (and partially born) citizens.
Do we?
Welcome to, "The Right".The Constitution does not because it's not specifically written into the Constitution.
It is open to interpretation though, through the courts. It depends on which stooges have been appointed, from which party, as to whether it's there or not.
The right seems to not want a right to privacy, at least not for things they don't agree with. They want their own rights, and want to pound on others.
The Constitution does not because it's not specifically written into the Constitution.
One right does not supersede another. Any right to privacy cannot supersede the right to life.A right to privacy does not give you the right to kill babies.
That's the point! The general right of privacy is ultimately premised on the inherent rights of natural law, which necessarily precede and have primacy over the right of privacy relative to the legitimately and necessarily shared interests of the states and the people thereof. In other words, the right of privacy is derivative and limited accordingly.Private or not there are only extremely limited circumstances that allow us to kill another human being, in or out of the womb.
The doctrines of necessity, self defense, and defense of another apply.
I get that rights are natural. But they are given or taken away by man not God.Rights are natural.....unfortunately, most of the world has governments that take them away rather than protect them. That, at least, is the theory of our Constitution....to protect rights we are born with.....within reason (your right to swing your arm does not supercede my right to not get punched in the nose).
Exhibit A as to why most atheists are leftists and cannot be trusted to defend liberty. They are mindless fools.No rights are "God given". If they were the whole world would have them.
man can only take them away he cant give them,,I get that rights are natural. But they are given or taken away by man not God.
I get that rights are natural. But they are given or taken away by man not God.
"Natural Rights" are inherent and our founding documents recognize they come from our creator.I get that rights are natural. But they are given or taken away by man not God.
We are guaranteed the right to be secure in our persons and property... is that not an implicit guarantee of privacy?The Constitution does not explicitly call it a right to privacy but we do have the right to life, liberty & property. These are all individual rights that do not exist absent the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment.
The 1st Amendment says we have the right speak about our private thoughts & opinions, so those are protected.
The 2nd Amendment to private ownership of weapons, so those are as well.
The 9th Amendment says we have inviolate rights not enumerated specifically.
The 3rd protects the privacy of residences from housing soldiers.
The 4th involves the right to privacy in regards to search & seizure.
The Bill of Rights also guarantees our God given rights which would include privacy.
Do we have the right to privacy if we have a dozen dead bodies in the garage? No
Do we from unwarranted searches or monitoring, harassment, our beliefs, religion, weapons, medical info or speech? Absolutely
