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: carranza2 who wrote (115677)	5/23/2005 3:09:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793883

The reason I mentioned the fourth amendment was because it was on my mind as I was considering whether I could cook meth in my house without the neighbors calling the cops. It was just a quick retort to CB. Nonetheless, here's the logic, non-lawyerly though it might be. The law cannot enter my home on a fishing expedition. They need a warrant. If what I'm doing is not apparent, then there can be no warrant, ergo I have a right to do it. <g> Actually, I think the right to privacy is in the ninth amendment.

To: carranza2 who wrote (115677)	5/25/2005 7:22:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

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. It seems that you are saying that we would be worse off without a right to privacy, and that our liberty would not be as protected, so it is good and proper and necessary that a right of privacy get read in to the constitution. If you can create a right to privacy that way what is to stop any other number of rights from being created? You might say "well great" we all want more rights, but other people doing the "reading" may see something as a right that you don't consider a natural right, a proper constitutional right, an idea that increases our freedom, or something that is in any way a good thing. I much prefer the rule of stable constitutional law, allowing for clearly needed changes through the amendment process. An amendment is much more difficult to get than a judicial decision, even one by the supreme court, and that is a good thing. It shouldn't be easy to rewrite the basic framework of laws in out country. An more originalist interpretation of the constitution would also increase liberty in a number of ways. Government would have to be smaller and regulate less if it was to stay within the bounds of the constitution, esp. the federal government. Tim