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: Ilaine who wrote (84909)	11/8/2004 7:36:20 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

I'm not surprised he hemmed and hawed. The Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people) in conjunction with the Fourth (search and seizure) gives lots of room to anyone who wants to argue either side of the privacy issue. I hope you're not going to ask me the same question :)

To: Ilaine who wrote (84909)	11/8/2004 9:00:59 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

Privacy is a synonym, or, at least, a necessary condition, for freedom. If you have not privacy, you have not freedom. Our societies are not panopticons or police states The basic attitude in our society and tradition is that "If it's not forbidden, it's allowed." Both liberals and conservatives hold this view. They differ on what to forbid. The matter of privacy becomes salient with respect to religion. Your government decided wisely to favour no religion. The British, having an official, Anglican church, turned it into a catholic version of unitarianism to achieve the same end. Intrusion by the state into minds, homes and bodies is always an attack on freedom. That it's sometimes necessary makes no difference; it's still an attack on freedom. Some societies have a more or less even split on the desireability of attacking certain freedoms. The two sides are never going to agree over any short term. Under these circumstances it's best to compromise because the results of other alternatives are usually worse. I'm surprised Bork hummed and hawed. I do believe the point of your revolutionary war, your civil war, and your constitution is to guarantee freedom. In what fashion is a constructionist different from a literalist? my own view lies with those like Bork who are described as strict constructionists. When I was in law school, Bork gave a speech at my school. During the question-answer session, I asked him whether he could find a right to privacy anywhere in the Constitution. I mentioned the age old right of the common citizen to be able to refuse even a king from entering his hovel, be it ever so mean (humble), without permission (or a warrant). He hemmed and hawed but did not really give me an answer yea or nay.