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 (229035)	4/13/2005 1:38:09 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573758

"I appreciate privacy, but not a non-existent constitutional right to it." Its inferred. It other words it is made up. It is not part of the constitution. People can infer whatever they want from it but it isn't there. No, its inferred. Its not specifically referenced but its implied. That is not an unusual trait in the law. I didn't say the right to privacy was exclusive or the only law of the land. On abortion "privacy" is supposed to be a fundamental right, trumping all other law federal or state. But in other areas its just fine that privacy is not "exlusive or the only law of the land". Just goes to show how Row vs. Wade is not about a supposedly constitutional right of privacy, but rather the judges desire for a "constitutional right" to abortion. Tim, just because its not what you want, that doesn't mean the judge came to the conclusion on a whim. I've explained right of privacy and how that relates to a woman's body. By now, if you can't or won't get it, you probably never will. Just remember that you are most likely choosing not to get it because, in truth, the concept is not that complicated. They did not change "the meaning" of the right to privacy. They simply expanded the right to include things that not been included previously. Expanding a term to mean things it didn't mean before is changing the meaning that you apply to that term. How old are you? You are acting like a petulant child. If you were not able to expand our rights to accommodate changes in lifestyle and mores, then you would have a static and ineffective Constitution. We can apply the existing rights to new circumstances. (ie. freedom of speech and the press includes the same protection against government censhorship of bloggers or posters on SI) We are also able to amend the constituion. And if collectively we think that protection of a certain idea or real or alleged right is important we can vote against anyone who violates it. But if the court can instead just invent what it sees as new rights unfettered by the actual constitution it can create limiations on democracy or freedom that it calls rights. The court doesn't just "invent" something out of thin air. There must be a basis in the law for it to render its opinion. Most of the courts in this country do a very good job of following the law. You should be more appreciative. Its hard work being fair. "...and the amendment process (which trumps everything else in out system of government in the rare cases when it is used)..." Tell me something I don't know. Apparently I just did. You still insist that the amendment process doesn't trump court decisions and that an amendment (for anything not just the special case of an amendment to make the numbers of senators each state has unequal) can be unconstitutional. It doesn' trump anything if its unconstitutional. It is doing its job. Poorly in a number of cases. Like I said, most courts are doing their job well. You just don't like its rulings because they fly in the face of your own positions. I don't like the rulings because they aren't supported by the constitution. That is wrong. I also wouldn't like ruling that would support my ideas but that aren't in the constitution. I can think of a number of court decisions where the result was favorable to my opinion but where the decision was constitutionally questionable. I am not surprised. Your thinking seems to be very unconstitutional. ted