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.
Your clueless trolling is comical .There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.
The list is to short and does not cover the whole case of Government intervention to "save us" from ourselves.It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?
Working from my poor memory I seem to remember some about a person had the right to have his papers protected from government search or something like that. I am I not remember right?What is "privacy"? The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects." It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.
This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely. But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time. There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights). The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it. Poppycock!
Such a reading renders meaningless the provisions in Article V for revising the Constitution, because it implicitly asserts that Constitution can be modified by judicial whim.
Bullshit on steroids.
There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.
Which would force these brave "champions of wimmins' rights" to propose a REAL Amendment to the Constitution that would legalize what they have pretended to be the case these past 45 years or so. Good luck with that, mother fukkers.
Congratulations , my credentials include sweeping the floor with legal review on this issue , what is your point ?Monk-Eye.
I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade. It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. If you disagree, show it to me.
The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I have given the Roe case much thought in past years, and it really seems that the derision to terminate is bwteen the father and mother, but the weight in on the female side." Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "
* Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism *
Congratulations , my credentials include sweeping the floor with legal review on this issue , what is your point ?Monk-Eye.
I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade. It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution. If you disagree, show it to me.
The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.
Because beings without a physical capacity for sentience have also not acquired development for natural viability a faeiouyt us does not have any wrights and is private property of the mother , whereby the fourth amendment follows to be secure in their persons and effects ( self ownership and self determination ; and , the fifth amendment follows that government must provide just compensation for taking private property .
Thus , because undoubtedly you may likely identify yourself with the term antifederalism , just in case you may not have met one , do you also identify yourself with antistatistism , where tyranny by majority at a state level is also rebuked as being more valid than individualism ?
An ignorance of heresy against antinomianism is more resentful than a poor understanding of political science where liberties of individualism are entitled when consistent with non aggression principles .
Step forth to challenge this premise , Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? , else recant a vain vendetta that roe v wade is based upon a wright to privacy in the first place , as it is based upon a criteria to qualify for citizenship !
* Stick That In Your Paltry Personal Volition Sentiments for Federalized Social Welfare *
A government proscription of abortion entitles any woman which would seek to acquire an abortion and if prohibited , then its private property is being taken by government from whom just compensation is due .
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Working as a Deputy in what is called the old days, it would be wrong to search a guys car for evidence on a crime that you did not see. Now it sort of seems that you can for just about anything that a DOG can smell. The only reason we had to search your car was if you were going to jail for some reason. This was to protect the Deputy from being accused of taking something of value.The Constitution enumerates what government can do and grants all else to the state or individuals. Clearly limiting government by its very nature insures and allows for privacy. The Bill of Rights outlines all the travesties committed by England upon the Colonists and affirms the new government will protect its citizens.
Entry into a mans house is not allowed,. unless a crime is or has occurred or someone is in distress, or a danger is evident or in fresh pursuit. Those were the rules, sometimes these are in the State Constitution and are more restricted than the Federal.The Constitution doesn't grant anybody rights-not even the first 10 amendments. It lists rights that the government can't take away (hence the "Shall not be infringed). There's a BIG distinction between those two ideas and it was done deliberately.
The right to own a gun is highly restricted, only certain weapons are not registered and these are of the type collected for history.The imaginary ‘individual right to possess a gun.’
The imaginary ‘right to self-defense.’
Conservatives can’t have it both ways; if there’s no right to privacy, then there is also no individual right to possess a firearm.
It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment. It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
So here is the question: If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?
"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution"
Proposed 9th amendment
Ninth Amendment said:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Skylar, I won't call you an idiot, but you are wrong.
Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on. These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.
Reserve rights *are* actual rights. There is no distinction in terms of constitutional protection between enumerated and unemumerated rights. They cited the 4th amendment. Specifically, the implications of privacy with the requirement of warrants for search and seizure.But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights), they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures). And this is literally nonsense.
That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.
Incredible level of delusionality.
Who leads you out of the rain? Who wipes your bum?
You are hopeless.