The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"

OP
DGS49

DGS49

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
8,669
Reaction score
2,383
Points
290
Location
Pittsburgh
Reasoned arguments? I have challenged the Board to find the 'Right of Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments, and you come up with bupkis.

The political Right is not attempting to "take away" anyone's rights. What I am pointing out that by creating an illusory "right of privacy," a "right" has been created our of NOTHING, WITH NO LIMITATIONS. The Constitution deals with eavesdropping, searches, seizures of property, quartering soldiers in private residences. The "right of privacy" deals with taking birth control pills, killing babies in the womb, sodomy, marriage, and who knows what else? The rationale that supports gay "marriage" is indistinguishable from the arguments used in support of incest, bestiality, and polygamy. Are we to understand that the Constitution, as currently constituted, demands acceptance of these practices? They are all "private" behavior, right? Harming no one.

Who knows what else can be done with this cudgel of a "right"? Arson of one's own house? That's a private matter, if insurance isn't involved. Privacy is undefined, undefinable, and totally unconnected with the Constitution as it currently exists.

If "you" want a Constitutional "Right of Privacy," there is a way to get one. See Article 5 of the Constitution for instructions. But until that happens you can shove your so called "right of privacy" where the sun don't shine. And may God give Trump enough openings on the Supreme Court to un-do the "Constitutional" atrocities of the past 50 years.

McCain's gone, now let's work on RBG.
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
73
Points
95
* Well Spring Hand Out *

* Organization Of Terminology Complexities *

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.
Basic elements of individualism are self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( property , willful intents ) ; these are founded from negative liberties free of illegitimate aggression from government and from other private individuals , which establishes its determinations from non aggression principles .

A negative wright establishes a negative liberty to be free of government ; however , a negative wright does not establish a negative liberty to be free of illegitimate aggression against ones self ownership or self determination from other individuals .

A positive wright may establish a negative liberty to be free of other individuals , or it may establish a positive liberty to be dependent on other individuals , that by definition is a law prescribing an assertive action of government .

By definition , a negative wright is described as any law defining a non action , a negative action , an inaction , of government , that is what a government is proscribed , prohibited from an authoritarian assertion .

* Subjective Terms Introduced Without An Compelling Definition *
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.
Whether wrights to privacy for self ownership and for self determination are invoked from the fourth , or fifth , or ninth amendment , non aggression principles founds a legitimate basis for determining limits of public or private intervention into private affairs and what is to be deemed as " UNREASONABLE " .

This reference noted now twice is without response - Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? .

* Alternative Personas Calling Out Against Heretics And Hypocrites *

A basic premise of Antinomianism - Wikipedia is that by no name will one invoke a law : not by mu sa , not by is sa , not by mu ham ad , not be pretenses of an ineffable deity , from which ensues a paradox as adherents aspire to remove all written laws from society through a utopian expectation that introduces dystopian consequences .


* Standards Upon Which Whey Try *
It was necessary to base the Right of Privacy on enumerated rights because the Right of Privacy was being used to void existing laws, some of such laws having been on the books for centuries, without objection. For example, obscenity laws and sodomy laws, and most importantly, laws prohibiting abortion. When the Right of Privacy was invented, these laws had been in effect, without any Constitutional challenge, since BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY.
The genetic religions of torahnism and qurayshism include a nomianism that would not apply outside their respective city states of israel and of hejaz ; whence , otherwise see antinomianism ; whence , include non aggression principles to elucidate a pretext for " REASONABLE " .
" Iconoclasm Perspectives Conjectural Hostility Projections "
* Hair Raising Contemptible *

Recant that blasphemy is a provocation to seek a civil tort , or a criminal prosecution by a state of government , or by a private individual , or by a private collective as a greater individual , when said action would violate non aggression principles .
Else , establish where blasphemy violates non aggression principles .
* Sun Stroked With Desert Madness *
Judge Kavanaugh, along with any additional Justices nominated by President Trump, will thrust a knife into the heart of this campaign, delaying (and reversing) its effects for a generation or more, and bringing the Constitution back in line with its true and intended meaning. Which is why the Democrats are absolutely apoplectic about killing his nomination, or delaying it until either Trump is ousted or the Democrats take the Senate. The future of the country is at stake.
Actually , enough congress persons have read the thread at the following link , and enough interns have had it explained to them , that any peep against roe v wade decision is made non sensible - US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion

The future of the country remains at stake for a number of reasons but abortion is not one of them .

The guidance from democrats towards authoritarianism of a bureaucratic collective is contemptible , but it is no less contemptible than nomian theists , as both decry non aggression principles and undermine informed consent .

* Distant Oscillation References *


- Abortion : Anti US Tenth Ninth Amendment Polity Pundits : Description Distribution

- Christian Antinomianism Against Legalism of Fictional Ishmaelism
- Sectarian Nomian Legalism Versus Secular Non Nomian Legalism


* Reference End Notes *

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]

 
Last edited:

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
Reasoned arguments? I have challenged the Board to find the 'Right of Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments, and you come up with bupkis.
Nonsense. We told you quite clearly....that the Constitution doesn't create ANY right. The constitution only creates powers. Thus, demanding we cite the constitution to 'prove' a right exists demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution does and what the basis of rights are. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear, the constitution merely *enumerates* some rights. While unenumerated rights still in reserve by the people.

Making your demand that a citation of the constitution to 'prove' a right exists just more pseudo-legal gibber jabber. As is your assumption that any unemumerated right is 'imaginary'. The 9th amendment puts that entire concept to bed soundly and utterly.

And why, pray tell, would we anyone need a warrant for searches.....if there was no right to privacy?

The political Right is not attempting to "take away" anyone's rights. What I am pointing out that by creating an illusory "right of privacy," a "right" has been created our of NOTHING, WITH NO LIMITATIONS. The Constitution deals with eavesdropping, searches, seizures of property, quartering soldiers in private residences. The "right of privacy" deals with taking birth control pills, killing babies in the womb, sodomy, marriage, and who knows what else?
The right to privacy deals with control of one's own body. Which is the property of every individual respectively. Every person born in the US has a right to their own life. Yet per your bizarro interpretation of the constitution (in both word and in twisted purpose) is that without a bill of sale and a deed of ownership recognized by the state (as we have with say, a home), that we have no right to our own bodies. Which, of course, is nonsense.

The right to privacy is literally nothing more than the right to be left alone, the right to personal autonomy.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,740
Reaction score
9,410
Points
2,030
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.
All rights not expressly granted to the government or states are retained by citizens.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
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.
All rights not expressly granted to the government or states are retained by citizens.
Powers, but yeah.
 

saveliberty

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
57,740
Reaction score
9,410
Points
2,030
Powers, but yeah.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This comes from the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
 

ABikerSailor

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
48,487
Reaction score
8,838
Points
2,040
Location
Amarillo TX
People might initially feel like they have a right of privacy, but they forfeit it when they sign up for all these new apps that help them keep in touch better with all their friends, or something that makes their shopping or life easier.
 

Abatis

VIP Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
371
Reaction score
69
Points
80
Location
Upper Bucks County, PA
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.
The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't Roe or even Griswold, it's Slaughterhouse.

Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.

That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism.

In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
8,669
Reaction score
2,383
Points
290
Location
Pittsburgh
I have no Particular opinion on whether a Constitutional right of privacy would be a good idea. My point is that it is not there npw, that it was made up by a rogue Court, and since it was made up and not DEFINED, the Court is free to "interpret" it to include anything the Left Wing wants to include. As stated above, under its current rationale, incest laws, laws against polygamy, and laws against bestiality care all clearly "unconstitutional ."
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
55,688
Reaction score
1,169
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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?
we have to convince the right wing; they don't believe those are forms of "regulation" to be cut as waste.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
Powers, but yeah.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This comes from the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Or the 10th amendment.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
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.
The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't Roe or even Griswold, it's Slaughterhouse.

Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.

That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism.

In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.
Yeah, when I hear a GOP lawmaker use the words 'freedom', 'liberty' or 'patriot' in legislation, I know he's probably going to do something fairly awful.
 

Monk-Eye

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
73
Points
95
" Inventive Other Wise Interesting "

* Gracious Agreeable Replies *
The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't Roe or even Griswold, it's Slaughterhouse.
Thank you Abatis for the informing reference to here Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother ,

There are many anti-federatlists which are statists ( ? statistists , statelists , stateastist ), while including anti-statistism as well would be a consequence of espousing individualism based within non aggression principles .

* Court Ignoring Obvious Clauses *

Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia
The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted. It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. However, as the federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship. In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.

* Non Aggression Theories Originate *

Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.
The roe v wade decision is based upon on an amendment stipulating birth as a prerequisite for citizenship and hence for equal protection , and roe v wade is a decision consistent with both birth as a prerequisite for state citizenship and federal citizenship and hence for equal protection .

A collective state is comprised of citizens and a collective state is obligated to its citizens , while non citizens also require birth for equal protection and are to be " subject to its jurisdiction " for even a slightest supposition for equal endowment of its law .

* Onus Politicians Going Fore Hours Without Competent Economic Aptitudes *
That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism.
In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.
The country would due well to get out from under a number of over deriding perspectives .

There are 1.4 million permanent legal immigrants arriving annually to the us with lower labor market skills and a greater propensity for overpopulation with social depression .

The United States Secretary of Labor - Wikipedia is responsible for reporting on immigration levels relative with labor demands .

States expend budgets for commercial infrastructure ; yet states also fund nearly all social welfare for its residents and those expenditures are not expected to recouped ; alternatively , advocates for federal coffers seek a plethora of income tax receipts to float the social security system pyramid scheme of pilfered funds .
 
Last edited:

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
I have no Particular opinion on whether a Constitutional right of privacy would be a good idea. My point is that it is not there npw, that it was made up by a rogue Court, and since it was made up and not DEFINED, the Court is free to "interpret" it to include anything the Left Wing wants to include. As stated above, under its current rationale, incest laws, laws against polygamy, and laws against bestiality care all clearly "unconstitutional ."
The right to control of the use of your *own body* isn't a 'left wing' right. Its a human right. Its the right to be left alone. Your assertion that the right to privacy isn't a 'constitutional right' is pseudo-legal gibber-jabber. Just you ignoring the Judiciary and making up whatever you'd like.

Constitutionally, you play no role in defining any part of the constitution. Constitutionally, the judiciary has a DUTY to interpret the constitution.

Making your assertions of what rights exist and which don't mere legally useless statements of personal belief that have zero relevance to our actual laws or rights.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top