Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (84697)	11/7/2004 9:04:37 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793799

As you know, it was "well settled" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at all until the late 19th - early 20th century, when various justices began to argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. This position did not command a majority until Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]). So your constitutional "right to privacy" came into being, as I posted earlier, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 [1965]). These are recent doctrines, and I agree with those who say that they are not constitutionally sound. I don't like the idea of federal judges telling me that it's ok for homosexuals to marry, either. I don't think there is a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry. I don't think there is a constitutional right to use contraceptives. I don't think there is a constitutional right to have an abortion. I think this is do-good, feel-good, top-down, Eastern establishment elitism.

To: carranza2 who wrote (84697)	11/7/2004 9:47:31 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793799

Obviously there is no Constitutional right to privacy because if there was, the IRS code requiring me to drop my financial drawers and accept a full body cavity strip search every year would be unconstitutional.