Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74
Thanks Tree22Thanks

Thread: Ninth Circuit decision could lead to SCOTUS showdown over your right to a private sex

  1. #11
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    31,420
    Thanks
    8059

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by DemoWhip View Post
    I do agree with you in that we need actual laws to protect a person's privacy. However, it appears more logical that a Democratic Congress would protect the rights of citizens in this regard whereas it would be a cold day in hell for a Republican Congress to do so.
    I would not bet on that.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24,330
    Thanks
    4064

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    I would not bet on that.
    Me either.

    The only time democrats care about privacy is when they think it can get them votes.

    At least the libertarian wing of the Republican Party seems to have a modicum of consistency about it.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 12th February 2018 at 09:14 PM.

  3. #13
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,753
    Thanks
    26266

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    The problem with your post is that I did not say such a right didn't exist. I said no where in the constitution does it actually exist - a point you just echoed with your own retort which basically just admitted it was absent from the constitution. So you are just making my point for me really so I should thank your post also.
    I was not making your point - which was that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a right to privacy because it is not in the Constitution. The rule of construction articulated in the 9th Amendment prohibits such a construction of constitutional rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I actually do believe we have a right to privacy - which is why I would like to see it codified into law.
    It might be helpful, and it might not. Would a statute be construed broadly or narrowly? It would have to be quite carefully written, and even then it is no guarantee that the courts would interpret it as broadly as may be intended. It might be better to stick with the common law tradition on something like this, to avoid restricting it.
    Thanks from labrea

  4. #14
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,873
    Thanks
    405

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Our country is based on the principle that rights are inherent and do not come from Government. That's why the constitution left open a process to amend and add rights as the people saw fit.

    My point was that our privacy rights are not spelled out in the constitution or in law. They are instead the invention of judges and applied haphazardly as their subjective nonsense allows for - which is not sufficient. They need to be clarified and made into law.

    Now how on earth Ian interpreted my comment to mean I was trying to deny people a right to privacy is anyone's guess - as I was actually doing the exact opposite.
    If you want to understand the meaning and cause for the Fourth Amendment's "privacy" rights, a quick perusal of John Wilkes' No. 45, James Otis and the writs of assistance trial, and Entick v. Carrington. The Fourth Amendment was created specifically due to these three events.

  5. #15
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24,330
    Thanks
    4064

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I was not making your point - which was that the U.S. Constitution does not protect a right to privacy because it is not in the Constitution. The rule of construction articulated in the 9th Amendment prohibits such a construction of constitutional rights.
    No - my point was that the right to privacy was not spelled out in the constitution and was instead an invention of judges selectively and loosely applied based on God knows what because their logic in regards to when Government can violate our privacy and when they can't is so stupid and contradictory it makes no sense.

    And the constitution does not protect our rights to privacy - because our privacy is legally violated routinely all the time and every day. So that is not even up for debate.

    It's obvious to me that new law is required to effectively protect our privacy. The constitution and the processes it allows for can be used to protect our rights to privacy - but in its current state it simply does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It might be helpful, and it might not. Would a statute be construed broadly or narrowly? It would have to be quite carefully written, and even then it is no guarantee that the courts would interpret it as broadly as may be intended. It might be better to stick with the common law tradition on something like this, to avoid restricting it.
    We have amendments that specifically grant us the right to free speech so why not have amendments that grant us specifically the right to privacy as well?

    I don't see the problem. So long as what I'm doing isn't illegal I don't see why it should be any of the Government's business.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 12th February 2018 at 09:47 PM.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    24,330
    Thanks
    4064

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    If you want to understand the meaning and cause for the Fourth Amendment's "privacy" rights, a quick perusal of John Wilkes' No. 45, James Otis and the writs of assistance trial, and Entick v. Carrington. The Fourth Amendment was created specifically due to these three events.
    The fourth amendment relates to searches and seizures done by the Government though. That is more of a check on Federal Power. It's not an acclamation that we have a fundamental right to privacy including the right to pursue legal sexual relationships without it being any of the Government's business - which of course is not the case currently.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 12th February 2018 at 09:47 PM.

  7. #17
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,873
    Thanks
    405

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    The fourth amendment relates to searches and seizures done by the Government though. That is more of a check on Federal Power. It's not an acclamation that we have a fundamental right to privacy including the right to pursue legal sexual relationships without it being any of the Government's business - which of course is not the case currently.
    I was not making an argument; I was providing the background for the Fourth Amendment. I used sanitizing quotation marks for the word "privacy" to leave it open.

    I think that you will discover how the Fourth Amendment's privacy rights have been stretched far beyond its intent by the judicial system.
    Thanks from MaryAnne

  8. #18
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,753
    Thanks
    26266

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    And the constitution does not protect our rights to privacy - because our privacy is legally violated routinely all the time and every day. So that is not even up for debate.
    It does protect such a right in certain ways, whether or not specified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    We have amendments that specifically grant us the right to free speech so why not have amendments that grant us specifically the right to privacy as well?

    I don't see the problem. So long as what I'm doing isn't illegal I don't see why it should be any of the Government's business.
    As long as the amendment is sufficiently broad, I have no problem with it.

  9. #19
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    54,753
    Thanks
    26266

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I think that you will discover how the Fourth Amendment's privacy rights have been stretched far beyond its intent by the judicial system.
    In what way? If anything, the government has gotten excessive leeway in its exercises of power, given the exceptions it gets.

  10. #20
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    48,151
    Thanks
    34119

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Me either.

    The only time democrats care about privacy is when they think it can get them votes.

    At least the libertarian wing of the Republican Party seems to have a modicum of consistency about it.
    The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life...t_of_Happiness

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 16th May 2017, 02:42 PM
  2. Replies: 102
    Last Post: 13th February 2017, 04:31 PM
  3. 5th Circuit Contraception Decision
    By BDBoop in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23rd June 2015, 08:18 PM
  4. Ninth Circuit Opinion on Same-Sex Marriage
    By heirtothewind in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th October 2014, 01:21 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 6th September 2008, 05:23 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed