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: tejek who wrote (228458)	4/11/2005 2:17:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573543

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. Privacy has no direct connection with democracy. You could have a democratic country with very little privacy, or even a non-democratic country with a lot of respect for privacy. And the whole idea of being a "perfect" or "imperfect" democracy has little to do with constitutional interpretation. The constitution doesn't change unless it is amended. 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. I appreciate privacy, but not a non-existent constitutional right to it. The 4th amendment spells out the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" not a general right to privacy or a specific right to abortion. If I did have a general constitutional right to privacy than I shouldn't have to tell the IRS how I made my money or how much I made but obviously that isn't the case. As situations have arised, the definition of the right to privacy has been expanded. If you can change the meaning of a constitutional right without amending the constitution than non of our freedoms are secure. You can change the meaning to eliminate the constitutional rights that we are explicitly given, or you can make up new "rights" the enforcement of which effectively reduces or eliminates previously respected rights. The right to privacy and its application to abortions could not be more clear but here is some wording on the subject: Its non-existence could not be more clear, as your quote shows. "a broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution. Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution" Yes, the USSC is the most august of our gov't institutions The three branches are supposed to be roughly equal. The fact that the other two branches appoint and confirm judges, the provision in the constitution for the congress to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, the possibility of impeachment of judges, and the amendment process (which trumps everything else in out system of government in the rare cases when it is used), are checks on the judicial branch, just as the judicial branch has checks against the other branches (mainly declaring their actions to be illegal or unconstitutional). When you fully understand the Constitution and its implications Apparently you don't. You miss such a basic ideas like the fact that an amendment to the constitution can't be unconstitutional. then you fully get how important the courts are to this democracy Courts a primarily important to the rule of law, even possibly to keep to the rule of law (which includes the constitution) at the expense a democratic consensus against some legal principle. In practice they can and do help protect the democratic system, but they are an inherently undemocratic part of the system, and intentionally so, because without respect for the rule of law (including respect from the courts as well as the other two branches) the system can be endangered, and without the constitutional system democracy can be endangered. and how supremely important is the USSC. I've never argued that the USSC is unimportant, or that it should be weak. I argued that it should do its duty and follow the constitution, rather than its members opinion about what the constitution should be, largely because of its power and importance. If it was weak and/or unimportant it might not be a big deal when the court goes on a tangent from the constitution. Tim