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: Lane3 who wrote (115675)	5/23/2005 2:44:06 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793878

Since the latest kick is to be strict constructionist, let me quote you the 4th Amendment: 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 only establishes the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. It has nothing to do with what you can do with impunity in your home. I fully agree that a right of privacy has to be read into the Constitution. Otherwise, government may attempt to control through the exercise of the police power activities which it ordinarily would be required to leave well enough alone. I don't think the Framers in their most fevered days thought that they needed to specifically describe freedoms which in their minds were assumed, such as the right to bring up children as parents see fit, etc. And for years, their scheme worked out well. But things change, history is not static. It became necessary to recognize these implicit freedoms as they became subjected to scrutiny and unnecessary regulation. Not everyone may agree with the final product, but to attack their existence and the need to protect them is wrong. The privacy doctrine in my mind is a terrific extension of freedom which its critics wholly misunderstand. The courts are the final arbiters in this game. I don't trust the politically-driven legislatures to perform this function. With an occasional and expected stumble here and there, I think we are on the right path.