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: Bridge Player who wrote (84928)	11/10/2004 6:27:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793801

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. The 9th amendment doesn't really grant any constitutional rights. It doesn't forbid or mandate anything. It seems to me to be a statement that the lack of a right being listed as a protected constitutional right doesn't mean its not a natural right. It does not however lay out these natural rights for inspection or give any of them status as a constitutional right. The 4th is about says "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." It obviously is a right that deals with privacy but it doesn't give any sort of right to do anything in private that you might want, it deals specifically with searches and seizures. If it did give a more general right to privacy that right would apply as much to prostitution and narcotic use (as long as you didn't do it in public), if you want to take a really extensive interpretation of it it would apply to just about anything you do in private and the government would have no right to regulate any of it. With certain exceptions that might actually be a good thing but that is not what the constitution says, nor has any such principle been laid out in any major court decision. If the 4th amendment is the grounds that the court uses for a "right to privacy", it would be taking a specific right that involves a certain type of privacy, changing it to be a more general "right to privacy", and than saying that right only applies in one or two narrow areas which are no where mentioned in the constitution. Tim