"I have a right to have right to beat the crap out of you and steal your wallet because it is not specifically listed as a power of the government in the constitution and therefore is an implied right."
No, then you've infringed on someone else's right. Your right to swing your arms stops where your fist meets my nose.
"Besides, if there is a right to privacy, then why are there laws for indecent exposure?"
Communities can set their own standards for indecency. One of them might be public nudity.
Actually, his right to swing his fist ends not when his fist meets your nose, but where your nose begins.
On the right to privacy and indecent exposure, if you have to make an effort to see me naked, I'm not committing indecent exposure; you're being a peeping tom.
What a about the privacy act of 1974? It must be unconstitutional because I already have a right to privacy that the government cannot infringe upon.
One, I don't think that anyone will argue that the right to privacy is an absolute right overriding all others; the fourth amendment, for example, specifies conditions under which one's privacy may be breached. Two, even the most cherished rights have limits; see theaters, shouting "fire" therein.
IÂ have been down that road before with some here. They do not see the unborn child as a person until it is born. Even though it has different DNA, different bloodtype, different sex, etc. than the mother, they think that it is just a part of the mother like a tumor or something. I tend to disagree with them though.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
The word "privacy" does not appear in the Fourth Amendment, that is true. To say that there is nothing about privacy in the Fourth Amendment is as false as false gets.
I don't know, I could see it as a privacy issue. Basically it is saying that the police cannot just search your house for the heck of it (invade your privacy). They need a good reason and the courts need to agree with them.
If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist. I am protected from a search or seizure (security of person, house, ect.)
"If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist."
You give up rights when you agree to take employment as part of a contract. You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements. He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him.
If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist.
If you are applying for a job or a loan, you give them permission (sometimes signing a written consent) to look at these things. They do not do it without your knowledge.
I am protected from a search or seizure (security of person, house, ect.)
You are protected from searches without probable cause, but that has nothing to do with your personal security (safety). The government cannot just come in looking at what you have in your desk drawers for the simple reason of invading your privacy. They need a probable cause. When they have it, they do not come to your house to threaten your life, they come to see what you have hidden in the privacy of your home.
I cannot snoop around your house because I would be invading your privacy. A policeman with the permission of a judge can invade your privacy though.
"You give up rights when you agree to take employment as part of a contract. You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements. He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him."
If I give up my rights when I take employment, why is sexual harassment illegal? Can I enter into a contract of slavery?
"You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements." Employers don't need to abdie by the constitution? How radical!
"He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him." Last time I checked, I retained that right. If they wish to run a credit report I must consent to one. If he is entitled the RIGHT to check my character then people he interviews must be compelled to answer all questions.
What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist? As Peiter (and the foundation of American society) says, the rights don't come from words on paper. They're there because we are human.
This is Enlightement philosophy. Now, there's conservatives, I've heard who say The Enlightenment is what led to the destruction of Western Civilization because it took religion out of public life.
"The government cannot just come in looking at what you have in your desk drawers for the simple reason of invading your privacy."Â Not true!
It happens every year. The government has the right to tax us, but if privacy is a right then they cannot ask me or my employer to report my income. I am capable of paying my taxes without telling them how I much I made. Unless I am not paying what is due, I have committed no crime.
But those "words" are what keeps our government in check and protects your rights. Those who lived under Saddam's rule didn't enjoy those rights that our "words" allow you to enjoy.
"Those who lived under Saddam's rule didn't enjoy those rights that our "words" allow you to enjoy."
But they still had the rights, by virtue of the fact they were human, if you believe the concept of unalienable rights exists. The government just took them away, by force or consent.
The government has the right to tax us, but if privacy is a right then they cannot ask me or my employer to report my income.
That has been a big point of discussion by those that disagree with our current tax system. I would agree that it is an invasion of my privacy to have to tell the government what I made and how much I spent on interest for my house payment, etc. I am all for changing that in some way.
"What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist? As Peiter (and the foundation of American society) says, the rights don't come from words on paper. They're there because we are human."
So if we are endowed with these rights because we are human, why is abortion legal? Why is abortion not against the 4th ammendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...
The right of the people(insert the word BABY here) to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated.
Somehow this WRITTEN item of the constitution is ignored but the UNWRITTEN right of privacy is not?
"Decisions are called opinions and you know what they are similar to! :)"
I think decisions by the Supreme Courts can be made based on many factors and arrived by previous case law and democratic votes. Personal opinions don't need to be based on anything.
By current definition, a blastocyst, embryo or fetus is not a person. If it were, a woman could take the child deduction on her income tax as soon as she conceived, whether she delivered or not.
Even after a child is born, it is not a full citizen in the eyes of the law; juveniles do not have the rights of adults, nor do they have some of the responsibilities. They cannot legally buy/posess/consume alcoholic beverages, they cannot be held to contracts, they cannot marry. If they commit torts, their parents can be held liable; they have been held to have more limited rights to free speech and search and seizure protection than adults.
Not everything in this world is an either/or proposition.
They do not see the unborn child as a person until it is born. Even though it has different DNA, different bloodtype, different sex, etc. than the mother, they think that it is just a part of the mother like a tumor or something. I tend to disagree with them though.
if it's a person, than it's rights end at the umbilical cord. It doesn't have the right to force it's will on the mother's body.
but no, a fetus is not a separate person as far as the State is concerned. that is what a State issued birth certificate is for.
And by the way... I hope you prepare your dissertations to the SC better than that, because you still did NOT point out even 1 CASE (which IS what I asked for) or the Judge involved with it, to support the rhetorical position that the court is rife with "Activist Judges".
Yes I did. Roe v. Wade. And look at any of the cases involving school prayer.
How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? How many times do folks like you have be told that the federal government is a government of limited powers with the states given the power to address those matters not expressly mentioned in the Consititution?
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution
You need to look at the Amendment X
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Yes the people retain those rights the feds can't force its view of them on them.Â
So I assume you've got a problem with Brown v. Board of Educationand Loving v. Virginiaas well, jethro? That's an apt name you picked, then. Bown was decided the right way but for the wrong reasons. I believe the statute at issue in Loving did treat blacks differently than whites or other races and therefore was a violation of the 14th Amendment on its expressed terms.
One, I don't think that anyone will argue that the right to privacy is an absolute right overriding all others; the fourth amendment, for example, specifies conditions under which one's privacy may be breached. Two, even the most cherished rights have limits; see theaters, shouting "fire" therein.
The word "privacy" does not appear in the Fourth Amendment, that is true. To say that there is nothing about privacy in the Fourth Amendment is as false as false gets.
What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist?
The question is not whether a right to provacy exists the question is does the federal governmnet have the power to enforce it. The people did not give the feds that power and therefore it was left to the states and the people to do so if they so choose.
I think decisions by the Supreme Courts can be made based on many factors and arrived by previous case law and democratic votes. Personal opinions don't need to be based on anything.
The basis for Roe v. Wade was purely personal opinion.
By current definition, a blastocyst, embryo or fetus is not a person. But they are human beings.If it were, a woman could take the child deduction on her income tax as soon as she conceived, whether she delivered or not. And that distinction is irrelvant. Humanity based on tax status: the new liberal way!
Even after a child is born, it is not a full citizen in the eyes of the law; But they are human beings. Â
If Hackett, Byrd and Sheehan are the future of the Democratic party, it won’t be long before it completely disappears. To be successful, a Democratic candidate will need to be relentlessly positive. It may be frightening to conservatives -- but that’s why if Hillary Clinton is as smart as she’s alleged to be, we’ll see a permanent smile etched on her face from now until 2008.
Not by either legal or medical definition. That's your opinion.
My opinion on when life begins is somewhere in the third trimester. You will note that RvW specifically says that the states may make laws concerning abortion in the third trimester, but most states that have tried have tried to outlaw it completely.
The conservatives around here will compromise not one inch.
You can give them third trimester, 24 hour notification, parental consent. All commonsense hardnosed bargaining. All would reduce the number of abortions, if that is the stated goal. And I think it's a good goal.
"I have a right to have right to beat the crap out of you and steal your wallet because it is not specifically listed as a power of the government in the constitution and therefore is an implied right."
No, then you've infringed on someone else's right. Your right to swing your arms stops where your fist meets my nose.
"Besides, if there is a right to privacy, then why are there laws for indecent exposure?"
Communities can set their own standards for indecency. One of them might be public nudity.
If I choose to walk around my house naked...
Think about that one for a moment folks. (trying to hold down supper)
Sorry CSC, just picking on you.
"No, then you've infringed on someone else's right."
So are you against abortion then?
Actually, his right to swing his fist ends not when his fist meets your nose, but where your nose begins.
On the right to privacy and indecent exposure, if you have to make an effort to see me naked, I'm not committing indecent exposure; you're being a peeping tom.
One, I don't think that anyone will argue that the right to privacy is an absolute right overriding all others; the fourth amendment, for example, specifies conditions under which one's privacy may be breached. Two, even the most cherished rights have limits; see theaters, shouting "fire" therein.
I was hoping no one would take me up on that offer, Dan. I wouldn't want to be the cause of someone's blindness!
So are you against abortion then?
IÂ have been down that road before with some here. They do not see the unborn child as a person until it is born. Even though it has different DNA, different bloodtype, different sex, etc. than the mother, they think that it is just a part of the mother like a tumor or something. I tend to disagree with them though.
I wouldn't want to be the cause of someone's blindness!
LOL. Do you like my new tagline?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
Nothing in here about Privacy.
I think I'm gonna bust a rib laughing!!!
The word "privacy" does not appear in the Fourth Amendment, that is true. To say that there is nothing about privacy in the Fourth Amendment is as false as false gets.
Nothing in here about Privacy.
I don't know, I could see it as a privacy issue. Basically it is saying that the police cannot just search your house for the heck of it (invade your privacy). They need a good reason and the courts need to agree with them.
It's about security not privacy.
If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist. I am protected from a search or seizure (security of person, house, ect.)
"So are you against abortion then?"
It is a legal, medical procedure. I believe in the law.
I wouldn't be able to have one. I'm a guy, On a personal level, I wouldn't advise anyone else to have one.
"If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist."
You give up rights when you agree to take employment as part of a contract. You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements. He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him.
If I have a right to privacy, then it would be illegal for an employer to ask for a reference of my character or for a credit reporting agency to even exist.
If you are applying for a job or a loan, you give them permission (sometimes signing a written consent) to look at these things. They do not do it without your knowledge.
I am protected from a search or seizure (security of person, house, ect.)
You are protected from searches without probable cause, but that has nothing to do with your personal security (safety). The government cannot just come in looking at what you have in your desk drawers for the simple reason of invading your privacy. They need a probable cause. When they have it, they do not come to your house to threaten your life, they come to see what you have hidden in the privacy of your home.
I cannot snoop around your house because I would be invading your privacy. A policeman with the permission of a judge can invade your privacy though.
"You give up rights when you agree to take employment as part of a contract. You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements. He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him."
If I give up my rights when I take employment, why is sexual harassment illegal? Can I enter into a contract of slavery?
"You're employer doesn't have the same constitutional requirements." Employers don't need to abdie by the constitution? How radical!
"He has a right to check into your character and credit as part of your contract with him." Last time I checked, I retained that right. If they wish to run a credit report I must consent to one. If he is entitled the RIGHT to check my character then people he interviews must be compelled to answer all questions.
Â
What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist? As Peiter (and the foundation of American society) says, the rights don't come from words on paper. They're there because we are human.
This is Enlightement philosophy. Now, there's conservatives, I've heard who say The Enlightenment is what led to the destruction of Western Civilization because it took religion out of public life.
If that is true, where are we at?
"The government cannot just come in looking at what you have in your desk drawers for the simple reason of invading your privacy."Â Not true!
It happens every year. The government has the right to tax us, but if privacy is a right then they cannot ask me or my employer to report my income. I am capable of paying my taxes without telling them how I much I made. Unless I am not paying what is due, I have committed no crime.
"If I give up my rights when I take employment, why is sexual harassment illegal? "
You can't get arrested for it. People don't go to jail for sexual harrassment.
"Can I enter into a contract of slavery?"
Maybe you could, if you were stupid enough to sign a contract for it.
the rights don't come from words on paper.
But those "words" are what keeps our government in check and protects your rights. Those who lived under Saddam's rule didn't enjoy those rights that our "words" allow you to enjoy.
"It happens every year. The government has the right to tax us, "
Federal Income Tax is in the Contsitution.
You're running for office and you don't know this stuff?
"Those who lived under Saddam's rule didn't enjoy those rights that our "words" allow you to enjoy."
But they still had the rights, by virtue of the fact they were human, if you believe the concept of unalienable rights exists. The government just took them away, by force or consent.
The government has the right to tax us, but if privacy is a right then they cannot ask me or my employer to report my income.
That has been a big point of discussion by those that disagree with our current tax system. I would agree that it is an invasion of my privacy to have to tell the government what I made and how much I spent on interest for my house payment, etc. I am all for changing that in some way.
The government just took them away, by force or consent.
Yes they did. What I am saying is that those words are important for our protection of those rights that you speak of.
"What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist? As Peiter (and the foundation of American society) says, the rights don't come from words on paper. They're there because we are human."
So if we are endowed with these rights because we are human, why is abortion legal? Why is abortion not against the 4th ammendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...The right of the people to be secure in their persons...
The right of the
people(insert the word BABY here) to be secure in their persons...against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated.Somehow this WRITTEN item of the constitution is ignored but the UNWRITTEN right of privacy is not?
Â
Â
"So if we are endowed with these rights because we are human, why is abortion legal? Why is abortion not against the 4th ammendment?"
The decision is available for public viewing. A quick Internet search could put it in your hands. Find out why if you're curious.
Decisions are called opinions and you know what they are similar to! :)
I have read it, but I don't agree. I accept it as the rule, for now, until it is overturned.
I've never figured out why $$$$ equals First Amendment speech, either. But I'm ignorant on the exact reasons as laid out by the court.
"Decisions are called opinions and you know what they are similar to! :)"
I think decisions by the Supreme Courts can be made based on many factors and arrived by previous case law and democratic votes. Personal opinions don't need to be based on anything.
By current definition, a blastocyst, embryo or fetus is not a person. If it were, a woman could take the child deduction on her income tax as soon as she conceived, whether she delivered or not.
Even after a child is born, it is not a full citizen in the eyes of the law; juveniles do not have the rights of adults, nor do they have some of the responsibilities. They cannot legally buy/posess/consume alcoholic beverages, they cannot be held to contracts, they cannot marry. If they commit torts, their parents can be held liable; they have been held to have more limited rights to free speech and search and seizure protection than adults.
Not everything in this world is an either/or proposition.
And before they are born they can even be legally killed.
Before they are born they are not legally alive, at least for the first six months.
if it's a person, than it's rights end at the umbilical cord. It doesn't have the right to force it's will on the mother's body.
but no, a fetus is not a separate person as far as the State is concerned. that is what a State issued birth certificate is for.
I don't even know where to begin to answer that. It's mad, I tell you, Mad.
Forget I said anything.
::sigh::
So then, the 14th Amendment is what,
NOT
the law of the land?
Did you read it? Does it say anything about privacy?
And by the way... I hope you prepare your dissertations to the SC better than that, because you still did NOT point out even 1 CASE (which IS what I asked for) or the Judge involved with it, to support the rhetorical position that the court is rife with "Activist Judges".
Yes I did. Roe v. Wade. And look at any of the cases involving school prayer.
How many times do you folks have to be reminded that the Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it merely gives the power to the government to limit some of the rights that the people have by virtue of being human? How many times do folks like you have be told that the federal government is a government of limited powers with the states given the power to address those matters not expressly mentioned in the Consititution?
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution
You need to look at the Amendment X
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes the people retain those rights the feds can't force its view of them on them.Â
So I assume you've got a problem with Brown v. Board of Educationand Loving v. Virginiaas well, jethro? That's an apt name you picked, then.
Bown was decided the right way but for the wrong reasons. I believe the statute at issue in Loving did treat blacks differently than whites or other races and therefore was a violation of the 14th Amendment on its expressed terms.
Communities can set their own standards for indecency. One of them might be public nudity.
only to the extent that five people in black robes agree with it.
One, I don't think that anyone will argue that the right to privacy is an absolute right overriding all others; the fourth amendment, for example, specifies conditions under which one's privacy may be breached. Two, even the most cherished rights have limits; see theaters, shouting "fire" therein.
The word "privacy" does not appear in the Fourth Amendment, that is true. To say that there is nothing about privacy in the Fourth Amendment is as false as false gets.
"So are you against abortion then?"
It is a legal, medical procedure. I believe in the law.
No you believe in ciurt ruling without any basis in law.
What is so un-fundamental about privacy? Because that specific word doesn't appear, the right to it somehow doesn't exist?
The question is not whether a right to provacy exists the question is does the federal governmnet have the power to enforce it. The people did not give the feds that power and therefore it was left to the states and the people to do so if they so choose.
I think decisions by the Supreme Courts can be made based on many factors and arrived by previous case law and democratic votes. Personal opinions don't need to be based on anything.
The basis for Roe v. Wade was purely personal opinion.
By current definition, a blastocyst, embryo or fetus is not a person. But they are human beings.If it were, a woman could take the child deduction on her income tax as soon as she conceived, whether she delivered or not. And that distinction is irrelvant. Humanity based on tax status: the new liberal way!
Even after a child is born, it is not a full citizen in the eyes of the law; But they are human beings. Â
Before they are born they are not legally alive, at least for the first six months. But they are human beings.
If Hackett, Byrd and Sheehan are the future of the Democratic party, it won’t be long before it completely disappears. To be successful, a Democratic candidate will need to be relentlessly positive. It may be frightening to conservatives -- but that’s why if Hillary Clinton is as smart as she’s alleged to be, we’ll see a permanent smile etched on her face from now until 2008.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/rt20050819.shtml
Not by either legal or medical definition. That's your opinion.
My opinion on when life begins is somewhere in the third trimester. You will note that RvW specifically says that the states may make laws concerning abortion in the third trimester, but most states that have tried have tried to outlaw it completely.
The conservatives around here will compromise not one inch.
You can give them third trimester, 24 hour notification, parental consent. All commonsense hardnosed bargaining. All would reduce the number of abortions, if that is the stated goal. And I think it's a good goal.
It falls on deaf ears,