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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (228384)	4/9/2005 3:17:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573494

re: Yes, it does.....in at least two of its amendments. The 4th amendment 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 doesn't mention a general "right to privacy". It mentions a specific right against unreasonable search and seizure. The 4th amendment is one of the provisions in the Constitution that has helped define the right to privacy. I have said it before.....and we have argued this point before......and I say it again........the US was not a full fledged democracy when it was formed. After all, our model, England, was not a full fledged one either at that time. Over the course of decades, we have moved closer and closer to being a true democracy......that includes fleshing out the concept of right to privacy. As a libertarian, you should fully appreciate and support the right to privacy. Without it, the gov't can come into your home without a warrant and molest and abuse you and your family. That is not democratic. As situations have arised, the definition of the right to privacy has been expanded. Each time, there are people who object. That became esp. true when it was expanded to include a woman's right to choose. From the right to privacy, the courts determined that a woman has the right to choose if she wants to abort within certain limitations. It comes from the same right that allows you to choose whether you want to allow the police w/out a warrant into your condo. Its an important right that distinguishes us from totalitarian states. Before this right was established, the police and the gov't were entering people's homes without any permission or approval. That's why I say, the courts have been the most instrumental branch of the gov't to insure we become a true democracy and to defend that democracy. The right to privacy and its application to abortions could not be more clear but here is some wording on the subject: "right of privacy: an overview Distinct from the right of publicity protected by state common or statutory law, a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its work. In all of its forms, however, the right of privacy must be balanced against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include the promotion of public morality, protection of the individual's psychological health, and improving the quality of life." law.cornell.edu The USSC has no higher court to overturn its decisions. Yes, the USSC is the most august of our gov't institutions, and that's why its imperative that only the best people be appointed and its remedy sought only as a last resort. When you fully understand the Constitution and its implications, then you fully get how important the courts are to this democracy and how supremely important is the USSC. ted