# The Imaginary "Right of Privacy"



## DGS49 (Jul 18, 2018)

It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment.  It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.

So here is the question:  If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:

Consenting adults who are blood relatives (brother-sister) from getting married?
Polygamy?
Bestiality that does not physically harm the beast?
Manufacture and personal use of "controlled substances"?
Smoking marijuana?
Gambling among friends?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law.  Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 18, 2018)

You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.

If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising  and bug you with targeted ads.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment.  It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
> 
> So here is the question:  If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
> 
> ...


Wrong.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

That it was the original intent of the Framers to recognize a right to privacy is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – the right to privacy is plainly codified in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments, placing limits and restrictions on government authority when government seeks to interfere in citizens’ private lives and the conduct of citizens’ private matters.

Government has the authority to limit, restrict, or prohibit certain activities such as the use of narcotics because like all rights the right to privacy is neither absolute nor unlimited; the right to privacy is not license to do anything one wishes – what private activities government may or may not regulate or prohibit is expressed in privacy rights case law.   

The ignorance of Constitutional law exhibited in the OP is truly troubling, that so many Americans can indeed be this breathtakingly ignorant of the Constitution, its case law, and the fundamentals of American jurisprudence.


----------



## Davey T (Jul 18, 2018)

candycorn said:


> The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law.  Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.


No, that is theft.


----------



## Lysistrata (Jul 18, 2018)

Yes. There is a right to privacy. Look up the word "penumbra"? Do you really want government operatives looking over your shoulder at the the polling place? In your doctor's office? In your bank? Your bedroom? The concept of liberty is utterly meaningless without a natural right to privacy. Why do you think that there is a curtain to be drawn when you go to vote, or you are directed to a desk with privacy wings on it when you fill out your ballot?

When I vote in northern Virginia, I am checked in and given a ballot inside of manila folder. I am directed to take it to a standing desk with privacy shields. After I complete filling out my ballot, I place it back in the folder, and then go to the line at the machine where I place my ballot, all unseen by other eyes. Do you want something different, with government operatives watching everything we Americans do?


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

Davey T said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law.  Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.
> ...



Really?  How.  You still have your credit card numbers, social security numbers, and health records….  Nobody stole them from you.

And I, the broadcaster, only put the information out there.

Now, what someone does with it…that may be theft.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2018)

candycorn said:


> The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law.  Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.



To do any of these things ^^^ will aid and abet someone who might harm another.  The person who posted such private numbers does so with an intent, and any theft or other tort will be both a civil and criminal crime.

One other thought, peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.
> 
> If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising  and bug you with targeted ads.



Ok but I think we need to be mindful (and I am in NO WAY saying that you are not) that while so many have just sacrificed their privacy to be able to take a picture of their ham sandwich; their actions do not speak for the whole of society.  While some do not value their privacy since they are popular, since they are well connected, since they are secure; some people find it a must to maintain their privacy.

For example, you can be fired in many states for no reason at all.  You have no protection.  How many homosexuals are closeted to their employers where the boss would be aghast that a gay person is working with their son or daughter?  How many recreational drug users are there?  How many HIV positive folks hold down jobs in factories where they could possibly be injured?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2018)

There’s a canard conservatives attempt to propagate that because a word or phrase isn’t in the Constitution it’s ‘not in the Constitution’ – nothing could be further from the truth, of course.

For example, nowhere in the Second Amendment will you find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but in fact there is an individual right to possess a firearm and there is a right to self-defense pursuant to Constitutional case law.

Needless to say, we don’t hear conservatives whining about ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ not being in the Second Amendment.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## JLW (Jul 18, 2018)

Oddly,  enough the right of privacy was found in the Constitution and elaborated upon in Roe v. Wade.  Justice Blackmon found a right to privacy in what he called the "penumbra  of rights" under the Constitution, if memory serves me correctly.  For instance, the right against unlawful search and seizures or the right against self-incrimination imply a privacy right.

Ironically, those  that cheer the end of Roe v. Wade don't realize they are also cheering on the demise of the case  that found a right to privacy in the Constitution.  Once that case is overruled, its progeny and privacy cases that relied on Roe may all be in jeopardy.

Be careful what you wish for.  You just may get it.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > The right to privacy need not be codified by the Constitution; as a practical matter it exists in natural law.  Otherwise, you’d be unable to prevent me from legally putting your credit card numbers, social security numbers, health records on the Jumbotron at Times Square.
> ...



Believe me, I agree with you.

If the injured party has no expectation of privacy though…I’m not sure how you can prosecute the person who simply brought it to light.

PS:  What about health records?  What about if I know you rented porn and publicized that and you’re a teacher, coach, or Boy Scout Troop leader?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I would think there needs to be a harm.  Otherwise the victim can be sued for defamation.  The peeper may not win, but as the man said, in the US you can even sue a ham sandwich.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2018)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I find it really interesting that people will sacrifice a lot of their privacy, just so that they can have the latest goodies on their phones.
> 
> If you willingly give your information to a company, you have lost your right to privacy, because the company will more than likely use that for advertising  and bug you with targeted ads.


The right to privacy concerns only the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private organizations.

If a private person gives his personal information to a private company – such as a wireless provider – no ‘right’ to privacy was ‘lost’ because such a ‘right’ never existed to begin with.

Now, should government seek to obtain that private information from your wireless provider pursuant to criminal prosecution, then the right to privacy becomes an issue because your liberty is now in jeopardy.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Okay but if you rented a porno and you lose your job as a camp counselor or teacher or coach…you can’t expect to win a suit for defamatory exposure if the exposure is truthful; can you?   When Hillary and Podesta’s e-mails were made public by Trump’s buddies….they couldn’t sue anyone because the “injured parties” actually created and transmitted those messages.  

Can you imagine the field day that Verizon or AT&T  would have with your text messages if they could just sell them to whomever was willing to pay for them totally free of criminal or civil reprisal?  Imagine your boss being able to call the doctor and get your medical records—he did pay in part for your insurance so he should have access; right?  Will HIPAA be found to be unconstitutional?  

The unasked question is this…do you want to live in America or do you want to live in Conservistan where your information is not considered private?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 18, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Oddly,  enough the right of privacy was found in the Constitution and elaborated upon in Roe v. Wade.  Justice Blackmon found a right to privacy in what he called the "penumbra  of rights" under the Constitution, if memory serves me correctly.  For instance, the right against unlawful search and seizures or the right against self-incrimination imply a privacy right.
> 
> Ironically, those  that cheer the end of Roe v. Wade don't realize they are also cheering on the demise of the case  that found a right to privacy in the Constitution.  Once that case is overruled, its progeny and privacy cases that relied on Roe may all be in jeopardy.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.  You just may get it.


Exactly.

And the Third Amendment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private dwellings likewise documents the intent of the Framers to recognize the right to privacy.

Soldiers are entities of the state and extensions of government; the quartering of soldiers in private dwellings was a clear violation of the sanctity of the home and the inherent privacy of the home, an attempt by the state to intimidate citizens and interfere with private matters which occur in the home.

_Roe_ and its progeny represent the right to privacy with regard to prohibiting the state from interfering with personal, private decisions – such as whether to have a child or not; acknowledging the fact that the state has neither the authority nor interest in doing so.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



I guess that's why the next choice for a justice of the Supreme Court is so important.  There is no doubt the nominee will support the most conservative decision on privacy, but written to protect corporations such as AT&T and Verizon.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Maybe.  I think the court moderates itself to a large degree.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 18, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



It should, but the most conservative justices today are putting their ideology before common sense.

Consider the Supreme Court as a jury, and anyone who has served on a jury knows they are admonished to listen carefully to both sides of the witnesses, and use common sense to decide who to believe.


----------



## candycorn (Jul 18, 2018)

Wry Catcher said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Well, a few years ago, they ratified Obamacare; they said Hobby Lobby (remember the supposed "win" for the craft store???) still had to comply with the ADA but not on IUDs...

There are ebbs and flows.  The essential issue isn't the landmark decisions that everyone notices...you're right; it's the laws that allow fleeing suspects to be shot in the back  and the lessening of the burden the State has to come into your house, your car, your self and see what you've got.  Probable cause isn't as cut and dried as it was once.  The slow chipping is more damaging than the landmark rulings.


----------



## mgh80 (Jul 19, 2018)

The Constitution doesn't grant anybody rights-not even the first 10 amendments. It lists rights that the government can't take away (hence the "Shall not be infringed). There's a BIG distinction between those two ideas and it was done deliberately.


----------



## DGS49 (Jul 25, 2018)

What is "privacy"?  The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects."  It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.

This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely.  But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time.  There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights).  The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it.  Poppycock!

Such a reading renders meaningless the provisions in Article V for revising the Constitution, because it implicitly asserts that Constitution can be modified by judicial whim.

Bullshit on steroids.

There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.  The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.

Which would force these brave "champions of wimmins' rights" to propose a REAL Amendment to the Constitution that would legalize what they have pretended to be the case these past 45 years or so.  Good luck with that, mother fukkers.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jul 26, 2018)

*" Dramatic Lunacy "*

** Natural Freedoms Versus Membership In A Social Civil Contract **



DGS49 said:


> There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.  The "threat" to Roe v. Wade that is personified in Judge Kavanaugh is merely that some future holding by the Supreme Court will merely re-affirm the Constitution as it is written.


Your clueless trolling is comical .

If you want to know the actual basis of roe v wade - read it here - US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion .

It basically relates that a state is concerned with reprising violation of wrights for citizens and any who is not a citizen , and has not met the minimal requirement of birth for equal protection , has no protected wrights .


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 26, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment.  It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
> 
> So here is the question:  If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
> 
> ...


*The list is to short and does not cover the whole case of Government intervention to "save us" from ourselves. *


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 26, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> What is "privacy"?  The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects."  It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.
> 
> This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely.  But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time.  There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights).  The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it.  Poppycock!
> 
> ...


*Working from my poor memory I seem to remember some about a person had the right to have his papers protected from government search or something like that.  I am I not remember right?*


----------



## DGS49 (Jul 27, 2018)

Monk-Eye.

I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade.  It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit.  There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.  If you disagree, show it to me.

The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jul 27, 2018)

*" Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "*

** Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism **



DGS49 said:


> Monk-Eye.
> 
> I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade.  It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit.  There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.  If you disagree, show it to me.
> 
> The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.


Congratulations , my credentials include sweeping the floor with legal review on this issue , what is your point ?

Because beings without a physical capacity for sentience have also not acquired development for natural viability a faeiouyt us does not have any wrights and is private property of the mother , whereby the fourth amendment follows to be secure in their persons and effects ( self ownership and self determination ; and , the fifth amendment follows that government must provide just compensation for taking private property .

Thus , because undoubtedly you may likely identify yourself with the term antifederalism , just in case you may not have met one , do you also identify yourself with antistatistism , where tyranny by majority at a state level is also rebuked as being more valid than individualism ?

An ignorance of heresy against antinomianism is more resentful than a poor understanding of political science where liberties of individualism are entitled when consistent with non aggression principles .

Step forth to challenge this premise , Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? , else recant a vain vendetta that roe v wade is based upon a wright to privacy in the first place , as it is based upon a criteria to qualify for citizenship !

** Stick That In Your Paltry Personal Volition Sentiments for Federalized Social Welfare **

A government proscription of abortion entitles any woman which would seek to acquire an abortion and if prohibited , then its private property is being taken by government from whom just compensation is due .
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 27, 2018)

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Pushing Private Despotism Through Tyranny By Majority "*
> 
> ** Grass Tracks Pushing State Capitalism **
> 
> ...


*I have given the Roe case much thought in past years, and it really seems that the derision to terminate is bwteen the father and mother, but the weight in on the female side.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 27, 2018)

The imaginary ‘individual right to possess a gun.’

The imaginary ‘right to self-defense.’

Conservatives can’t have it both ways; if there’s no right to privacy, then there is also no individual right to possess a firearm.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 29, 2018)

The Constitution enumerates what government can do and grants all else to the state or individuals.  Clearly limiting government by its very nature insures and allows for privacy.  The Bill of Rights outlines all the travesties committed by England upon the Colonists and affirms the new government will protect its citizens.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 29, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> The Constitution enumerates what government can do and grants all else to the state or individuals.  Clearly limiting government by its very nature insures and allows for privacy.  The Bill of Rights outlines all the travesties committed by England upon the Colonists and affirms the new government will protect its citizens.


Working as a Deputy in what is called the old days, it would be wrong to search a guys car for evidence on a crime that you did not see.  Now it sort of seems that you can for just about anything that a DOG can smell.  The only reason we had to search your car was if you were going to jail for some reason.  This was to protect the Deputy from being accused of taking something of value.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 29, 2018)

mgh80 said:


> The Constitution doesn't grant anybody rights-not even the first 10 amendments. It lists rights that the government can't take away (hence the "Shall not be infringed). There's a BIG distinction between those two ideas and it was done deliberately.


Entry into a mans house is not allowed,. unless a crime is or has occurred or someone is in distress, or a danger is evident or in fresh pursuit.  Those were the rules, sometimes these are in the State Constitution and are more restricted than the Federal.
A good example:  Fla Law in the cases of a death of someone requires that the body has to be id with a name and a death of violence has to be shown.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Jul 29, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The imaginary ‘individual right to possess a gun.’
> 
> The imaginary ‘right to self-defense.’
> 
> Conservatives can’t have it both ways; if there’s no right to privacy, then there is also no individual right to possess a firearm.


The right to own a gun is highly restricted, only certain weapons are not registered and these are of the type collected for history.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 9, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment.  It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
> 
> So here is the question:  If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
> 
> ...



You're so profoundly wrong its scary. The constitution is an exhaustive list of powers held by the government.

It is not, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights held by the people. In fact, the opponents of the Bill of Rights argued that rights existed without the need for enumeration. And that if some rights were enumerated, some might be fallaciously lead to believe that those were the ONLY rights held by the people.

Here's an except from that debate:

_"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."_

_James Madison

_

Madison added the 9th amendment as a comprise to assure those opponents that enumeration in the constitution didn't create rights.

This was Madison's first draft for the 9th amendment:



> "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution"
> 
> Proposed 9th amendment



Which was later shortened to just this:



			
				Ninth Amendment said:
			
		

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



No one, I repeat NO ONE in the entire constitutional congress, from any side or any state, *ever argued that a right had to be enumerated in the constitution to exist. *That you do demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what the constitution actually is, what rights are and what what powers are.

You're so wrong, its scary.


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 10, 2018)

Skylar, I won't call you an idiot, but you are wrong.

Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on.  These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.

But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights), they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures).  And this is literally nonsense.

It was necessary to base the Right of Privacy on enumerated rights because the Right of Privacy was being used to void existing laws, some of such laws having been on the books for *centuries*, without objection.  For example, obscenity laws and sodomy laws, and most importantly, laws prohibiting abortion.  When the Right of Privacy was invented, these laws had been in effect, without any Constitutional challenge, since BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY.

So to claim, as the S.C. justices did, that the Right of Privacy had been in there all along, is legally and Constitutionally indefensible. It was an absolute rebellion and violation of their oaths of office, and was, in my opinion, grounds to impeach each of the Justices who voted, in case after case, to create and perpetuate this non-existent "Constitutional" right.

And this is the core of the Evil of the Democratic Left in this country.  They want to CHANGE the Constitution to say what they think it should say, and they KNOW that these changes could NEVER be implemented through the procedures mandated by Article V of the Constitution.  So they have waged a campaign, started by FDR, to change the Constitution through "interpretation" of its provisions to say what they want it to say, regardless of the words of the Constitution or the intentions of the people who wrote it and ratified it, piece by piece.

Judge Kavanaugh, along with any additional Justices nominated by President Trump, will thrust a knife into the heart of this campaign, delaying (and reversing) its effects for a generation or more, and bringing the Constitution back in line with its true and intended meaning.  Which is why the Democrats are absolutely apoplectic about killing his nomination, or delaying it until either Trump is ousted or the Democrats take the Senate.

The future of the country is at stake.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 10, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Skylar, I won't call you an idiot, but you are wrong.



I won't call you desperately, willfully ignorant and replacing the wording and intent of the 9th amendment with your imagination. But of course you're wrong.



> Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on.  These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.



The 9th amendment mentions no such limitation. You've imagined it. And arbitrarily making up caveats and restrictions has no particular value in any legal debate.

SHOW me that this was the meaning of the 9th amendment with evidence. You'll find that in the Constitutional Convention there were no such limits placed on it. Nor were there any in the quotes from Madison I've offered you on the purpose of the 9th amendment. Nor were there any such restrictions in the 1st draft of the 9th amendment.
*
You've made them all up.* And your imagination isn't evidence. _Its an excuse for it._



> But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights), they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures).  And this is literally nonsense.


Reserve rights *are* actual rights. There is no distinction in terms of constitutional protection between enumerated and unemumerated rights. They cited the 4th amendment. Specifically, the implications of privacy with the requirement of warrants for search and seizure.

The founders made it ludicrously clear when debating the bill of rights that any power not delegated to government was retained by the states and people. With the 14th amendment applying most of the federal prohibitions in the abrogation of rights on to the States. Also, by intention.

And of course, the Supreme Court is the designated arbiter of what the constitution is supposed to mean. Also by intent and design. When the federal government oversteps their bounds  in terms of their power, they Supreme Court and and should

Again, read Madison, including his comments on the Bill of Rights, its purpose and why the 9th amendment was created.

Read Hamilton. Specifically his objections to a Bill of Rights. And Federalist Paper 78 on the purpose and scope of judicial authority. Between Hamilton and Madison, they do an excellent job of laying out the respective roles of each branches, the power that the government was supposed to have, and inexhaustive nature of rights.

I'd also suggest reading Bingham and Howard in regards to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States in the 14th amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 10, 2018)

That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 10, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That the authoritarian right is hostile towards privacy rights comes as no surprise.



Not just privacy rights.....but the most fundamental rights possessed by anyone: the control of the use of their own body.

Never forget.....the right wants to strip people of federally protected constitutional rights, turn it over to the States and criminalize those rights.


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 20, 2018)

Incredible level of delusionality.

Who leads you out of the rain?  Who wipes your bum?

You are hopeless.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 21, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Incredible level of delusionality.
> 
> Who leads you out of the rain?  Who wipes your bum?
> 
> You are hopeless.



Insults are a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. They are an excuse for one. 

Try again. This time responding to the arguments presented in a rational manner. Rather than throwing a verbal tantrum.


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 26, 2018)

Reasoned arguments?  I have challenged the Board to find the 'Right of Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments, and you come up with bupkis.

The political Right is not attempting to "take away" anyone's rights.  What I am pointing out that by creating an illusory "right of privacy," a "right" has been created our of NOTHING, WITH NO LIMITATIONS.  The Constitution deals with eavesdropping, searches, seizures of property, quartering soldiers in private residences.  The "right of privacy" deals with taking birth control pills, killing babies in the womb, sodomy, marriage, and who knows what else?  The rationale that supports gay "marriage" is indistinguishable from the arguments used in support of incest, bestiality, and polygamy.  Are we to understand that the Constitution, as currently constituted, demands acceptance of these practices?  They are all "private" behavior, right?  Harming no one.

Who knows what else can be done with this cudgel of a "right"?  Arson of one's own house?  That's a private matter, if insurance isn't involved.  Privacy is undefined, undefinable, and totally unconnected with the Constitution as it currently exists.

If "you" want a Constitutional "Right of Privacy," there is a way to get one.  See Article 5 of the Constitution for instructions.  But until that happens you can shove your so called "right of privacy" where the sun don't shine.  And may God give Trump enough openings on the Supreme Court to un-do the "Constitutional" atrocities of the past 50 years.

McCain's gone, now let's work on RBG.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Aug 27, 2018)

** Well Spring Hand Out **

** Organization Of Terminology Complexities **



DGS49 said:


> Certainly there are rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  We have the right to enter into contracts, the right to move freely from place to place, the right to purchase, own, and sell property - real, personal, intellectual, and so on.  These are what is imagined in the Ninth Amendment.


Basic elements of individualism are self ownership ( free roam , free association , progeny ) and self determination ( property , willful intents ) ; these are founded from negative liberties free of illegitimate aggression from government and from other private individuals , which establishes its determinations from non aggression principles .

A negative wright establishes a negative liberty to be free of government ; however , a negative wright does not establish a negative liberty to be free of illegitimate aggression against ones self ownership or self determination from other individuals .

A positive wright may establish a negative liberty to be free of other individuals , or it may establish a positive liberty to be dependent on other individuals , that by definition is a law prescribing an assertive action of government .

By definition , a negative wright is described as any law defining a non action , a negative action , an inaction , of government , that is what a government is proscribed , prohibited from an authoritarian assertion .

** Subjective Terms Introduced Without An Compelling Definition **


DGS49 said:


> But when the Supreme Court invented the "Right of Privacy," *they did not cite the Ninth Amendment (non-enumerated rights)*, *they found the right of privacy among "emanations and penumbras" of actual enumerated rights (e.g., the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures).*  And this is literally nonsense.


Whether wrights to privacy for self ownership and for self determination are invoked from the fourth , or fifth , or ninth amendment , non aggression principles founds a legitimate basis for determining limits of public or private intervention into private affairs and what is to be deemed as " *UNREASONABLE *" .

This reference noted now twice is without response - Does Abortion Violate Non Aggression Principles ? .

** Alternative Personas Calling Out Against Heretics And Hypocrites **

A basic premise of Antinomianism - Wikipedia is that by no name will one invoke a law :  not by mu sa , not by is sa , not by mu ham ad , not be pretenses of an ineffable deity , from which ensues a paradox as adherents aspire to remove all written laws from society through a utopian expectation that introduces dystopian consequences .


** Standards Upon Which Whey Try **


DGS49 said:


> It was necessary to base the Right of Privacy on enumerated rights because* the Right of Privacy was being used to void existing laws, *some of such laws having been on the books for _centuries_, without objection. * For example, obscenity laws and sodomy laws, and most importantly, laws prohibiting abortion.  *When the Right of Privacy was invented, these laws had been in effect, without any Constitutional challenge,* since BEFORE THE FOUNDING OF THE COUNTRY.*


The genetic religions of torahnism and qurayshism include a nomianism that would not apply outside their respective city states of israel and of hejaz ; whence , otherwise see antinomianism ; whence , include non aggression principles to elucidate a pretext for " *REASONABLE* " .





Monk-Eye said:


> *" Iconoclasm Perspectives Conjectural Hostility Projections "
> * Hair Raising Contemptible **
> Recant that blasphemy is a provocation to seek a civil tort , or a criminal prosecution by a state of government , or by a private individual , or by a private collective as a greater individual , when said action would violate non aggression principles .
> Else , establish where blasphemy violates non aggression principles .



** Sun Stroked With Desert Madness **


DGS49 said:


> *Judge Kavanaugh, along with any additional Justices nominated by President Trump, will thrust a knife into the heart of this campaign,* delaying (and reversing) its effects for a generation or more, and *bringing the Constitution back in line with its true and intended meaning*.  Which is why the Democrats are absolutely apoplectic about killing his nomination, or delaying it until either Trump is ousted or the Democrats take the Senate.  *The future of the country is at stake.*


Actually , enough congress persons have read the thread at the following link , and enough interns have had it explained to them , that any peep against roe v wade decision is made non sensible -  US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion

The future of the country remains at stake for a number of reasons but abortion is not one of them .

The guidance from democrats towards authoritarianism of a bureaucratic collective is contemptible  , but it is no less contemptible than nomian theists , as both decry non aggression principles and undermine informed consent .
_*
* Distant Oscillation References **

- Abortion :  Anti US Tenth Ninth Amendment Polity Pundits : Description Distribution
- Christian Antinomianism Against Legalism of Fictional Ishmaelism
- Sectarian Nomian Legalism Versus Secular Non Nomian Legalism_

** Reference End Notes **

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_*The right of the people to be secure in their persons*, *houses, papers, and effects,[a] **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.[2]

_


----------



## Skylar (Aug 29, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Reasoned arguments?  I have challenged the Board to find the 'Right of Privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Amendments, and you come up with bupkis.



Nonsense. We told you quite clearly....that the Constitution doesn't create ANY right. The constitution only creates powers. Thus, demanding we cite the constitution to 'prove' a right exists demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution does and what the basis of rights are. As the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear, the constitution merely *enumerates* some rights. While unenumerated rights still in reserve by the people.

Making your demand that a citation of the constitution to 'prove' a right exists just more pseudo-legal gibber jabber. As is your assumption that any unemumerated right is 'imaginary'. The 9th amendment puts that entire concept to bed soundly and utterly.

And why, pray tell, would we anyone need a warrant for searches.....if there was no right to privacy?



> The political Right is not attempting to "take away" anyone's rights.  What I am pointing out that by creating an illusory "right of privacy," a "right" has been created our of NOTHING, WITH NO LIMITATIONS.  The Constitution deals with eavesdropping, searches, seizures of property, quartering soldiers in private residences.  The "right of privacy" deals with taking birth control pills, killing babies in the womb, sodomy, marriage, and who knows what else?



The right to privacy deals with control of one's own body. Which is the property of every individual respectively. Every person born in the US has a right to their own life. Yet per your bizarro interpretation of the constitution (in both word and in twisted purpose) is that without a bill of sale and a deed of ownership recognized by the state (as we have with say, a home), that we have no right to our own bodies. Which, of course, is nonsense.

The right to privacy is literally nothing more than the right to be left alone, the right to personal autonomy.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 29, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> What is "privacy"?  The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects."  It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.
> 
> This Fourth Amendment provision is related to privacy, surely.  But a broad-based "right of privacy" as invented by the Court is totally inconsistent with the laws, and indeed with the society that existed at the time.  There were laws against sodomy, adultery, bigamy, and incest, and none of the Founders (the people who wrote and ratified" the Constitution) saw any conflict whatsoever between those existing laws and the Fourth Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights).  The bogus rationale that supports the "right of privacy" supposes that the right has been there all along, but they were the first to find it or codify it.  Poppycock!
> 
> ...



All rights not expressly granted to the government or states are retained by citizens.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 29, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > What is "privacy"?  The Constitution addresses only the right of government to search one's "houses, papers, and effects."  It can only do so under certain circumstances, thus affirming a certain element of privacy among the population.
> ...



Powers, but yeah.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 29, 2018)

Skylar said:


> Powers, but yeah.



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This comes from the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every *power*, jurisdiction, and *right*, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 30, 2018)

People might initially feel like they have a right of privacy, but they forfeit it when they sign up for all these new apps that help them keep in touch better with all their friends, or something that makes their shopping or life easier.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 31, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> Monk-Eye.
> 
> I am an attorney, and I know the basis for Roe v. Wade.  It was bullshit when written and it remains bullshit.  There is no right of privacy in the Constitution.  If you disagree, show it to me.
> 
> The longer a Supreme Court holding is (the majority opinion), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head.



The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't _Roe_ or even _Griswold_, it's _Slaughterhouse. 
_
Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.

That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism. 

In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.


----------



## DGS49 (Aug 31, 2018)

I have no Particular opinion on whether a Constitutional right of privacy would be a good idea.  My point is that it is not there npw, that it was made up by a rogue Court, and since it was made up and not DEFINED, the Court is free to "interpret" it to include anything the Left Wing wants to include.  As stated above, under its current rationale, incest laws, laws against polygamy, and laws against bestiality care  all clearly "unconstitutional ."


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 31, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> It is no secret to anyone interested enough to read the Constitution that there is no "Right of Privacy" in the Constitution or in any amendment.  It is a made-up right, which is the basis for, among other things, voiding thousands of anti-sodomy laws, the "right" to have an abortion, and the "right" to marry someone of the same gender.
> 
> So here is the question:  If the Right of Privacy actually exists, can any legislature prohibit:
> 
> ...


we have to convince the right wing; they don't believe those are forms of "regulation" to be cut as waste.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 31, 2018)

saveliberty said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Powers, but yeah.
> ...



Or the 10th amendment.


----------



## Skylar (Aug 31, 2018)

Abatis said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Monk-Eye.
> ...



Yeah, when I hear a GOP lawmaker use the words 'freedom', 'liberty' or 'patriot' in legislation, I know he's probably going to do something fairly awful.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Aug 31, 2018)

*" Inventive Other Wise Interesting "*

** Gracious Agreeable Replies **


Abatis said:


> The SCOTUS decision that needs to be overturned isn't _Roe_ or even _Griswold_, *it's *_*Slaughterhouse*._


_Thank you Abatis for the informing reference to here Legislative Proposal :   Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother , 

There are many anti-federatlists which are statists ( ? statistists , statelists , stateastist  ), while including anti-statistism as well would be a consequence of espousing individualism based within non aggression principles .

** Court Ignoring Obvious Clauses *
*
Slaughter-House Cases - Wikipedia
The *Slaughter-House Cases*, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment which had recently been enacted. *It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state. *However, as the federal rights of citizenship were then few, such as the right to travel between states and to use navigable rivers; *the amendment did not protect the far broader range of rights covered by state citizenship.* In effect, the amendment was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights.

** Non Aggression Theories Originate **_


Abatis said:


> Problem for you and the other "that right isn't in the Constitution" people is that a whole panoply of rights will be recognized because the concept of "Liberty" could be enforced against the operation of federal and state governments.


The roe v wade decision is based upon on an amendment stipulating birth as a prerequisite for citizenship and hence for equal protection , and roe v wade is a decision consistent with both birth as a prerequisite for state citizenship and federal citizenship and hence for equal protection .

A collective state is comprised of citizens and a collective state is obligated to its citizens , while non citizens also require birth for equal protection and are to be " subject to its jurisdiction " for even a slightest supposition for equal endowment of its law .

** Onus Politicians Going Fore Hours Without Competent Economic Aptitudes **


Abatis said:


> *That would kick dogma-based conservatives in the nuts, who cloak their anti-liberty motives in constitutionalism. *
> *In reality, dogma-based conservatives and fuck the Constitution leftists are equally dangerous -- both invent governmental power to effect their agendas, especially to modify / forbid behavior of their fellow citizens that they find unacceptable.*


The country would due well to get out from under a number of over deriding perspectives .

There are 1.4 million permanent legal immigrants arriving annually to the us with lower labor market skills and a greater propensity for overpopulation with social depression .

The United States Secretary of Labor - Wikipedia is responsible for reporting on immigration levels relative with labor demands .

States expend budgets for commercial infrastructure ; yet states also fund nearly all social welfare for its residents and those expenditures are not expected to recouped ; alternatively , advocates for federal coffers seek a plethora of income tax receipts to float the social security system pyramid scheme of pilfered funds .


----------



## Skylar (Sep 4, 2018)

DGS49 said:


> I have no Particular opinion on whether a Constitutional right of privacy would be a good idea.  My point is that it is not there npw, that it was made up by a rogue Court, and since it was made up and not DEFINED, the Court is free to "interpret" it to include anything the Left Wing wants to include.  As stated above, under its current rationale, incest laws, laws against polygamy, and laws against bestiality care  all clearly "unconstitutional ."



The right to control of the use of your *own body* isn't a 'left wing' right. Its a human right. Its the right to be left alone. Your assertion that the right to privacy isn't a 'constitutional right' is pseudo-legal gibber-jabber. Just you ignoring the Judiciary and making up whatever you'd like.

Constitutionally, you play no role in defining any part of the constitution. Constitutionally, the judiciary has a DUTY to interpret the constitution.

Making your assertions of what rights exist and which don't mere legally useless statements of personal belief that have zero relevance to our actual laws or rights.


----------

