Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[JBvM]

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

give us 3 examples of legislation that came down from 'the bench' and do you mean all courts of just the federal ones?

Roe vs Wade.
Miranda
ACA

Interesting choice. Predictable

allow me please to address them separately

Miranda refers to Miranda Rights.

some facts (not found on talk radio and rightwing tv or web): {{meta.pageTitle}}

The Fifth Amendment: 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.

Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.​

In his separate dissenting opinion, Justice John M. Harlan wrote that the judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on the suspect. He also argued that there was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically inform suspects of their rights. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White joined in the dissent.​

Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so.​

Do you personally support a weak or a strong interpretation of the Fifth Amendment?


l

 

[JBvM]

Until Left-wing judges try to legislate from the bench, expressing their version of what the constitution allows.

give us 3 examples of legislation that came down from 'the bench' and do you mean all courts of just the federal ones?

Roe vs Wade.
Miranda
ACA

Ahh...

ACA/Obamacare/PPACA

A GREAT RESOURCE Found Right Here @ USMVB: PPACA | ACA | Obamacare | Mandate | Shared Responsibility Payment | Tax

How would you argue Robert's decision created actual legislation?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Delusions Of Misgivings "

* Ignoring The Obvious *

Roe vs Wade.

Your assertion is nonsense . The 14th amendment specifies that one becomes a citizen at birth and any which has not met the completion criteria of birth is not entitled to equal protection .

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

* Illegal Migrants Bilking Medicaid *

ACA

Definitely need a quote of the reblublicans whining about controlling government deficits and especially health care costs , that result from insurance shirkers walking in for treatment as the federal government bleeds out the nose .

The federal government does not behave as an insurance company , which would take in premiums and makes investments to offset losses , although it does require significant staffing to interface with private health care providers .

 

[danielpalos]

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

would 'natural born' apply to c-section births? nothing 'natural' about those is there? It's human beings interfering with nature, isn't it?

if you just want to argue; is there any reason to quibble?

you do know the framers argued over words too?

Over the years, people have argued over natural born citizen ... Did you ever engage in any of those argument(s)?

according to your claims - would a person born of a c-section (which is not a natural things) - accrue these so-called natural rights, that are supposedly accrued to what you refer to as, the natural born?

natural rights accrue to the natural born. is there any need to quibble?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

In 1958, in the case of NAACP v. Alabama, the SCOTUS ruled:

"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance …"

I won't publish a wall of text, but use that as a starting point to discuss the subject.

Puzzled here. I see Justice Douglas' words. Were they included in the Alabama case?

The quoted portion came from Justice John Marshall Harlan II who wrote the majority opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

I just heard, "I want to talk about this, and so I will see everything as about it, no matter what!"

Your surrender is noted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please do not try to make killing babies...

STOP!

see:
US Constitution > Judicial Interpretation >
Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

No. Aborting babies is not about "women's bodies", has never been, and will never be, and I don't give a rat's fat, furry ass how many posts on this message board you link to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

not under our Constitution; natural rights accrue to the natural born.

would 'natural born' apply to c-section births? nothing 'natural' about those is there? It's human beings interfering with nature, isn't it?

"Gosh, how many stupid ways can I misunderstand English to pretend that I'm being clever? Especially since I don't care if everyone except for me thinks I sound like a drooling dumbass!"

 

[koshergrl]

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

Actually, she asserted just the opposite.
The government has NO business in bedrooms and NO BUSINESS in our bodies. Which is why there should be no federally funded clinics, and no laws at all regarding who can be killed and who can't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

Actually, she asserted just the opposite.
The government has NO business in bedrooms and NO BUSINESS in our bodies. Which is why there should be no federally funded clinics, and no laws at all regarding who can be killed and who can't.

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

Actually, she asserted just the opposite.
The government has NO business in bedrooms and NO BUSINESS in our bodies. Which is why there should be no federally funded clinics, and no laws at all regarding who can be killed and who can't.

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

I didn't word it very well lol.
The government has no business LEGALIZING killing for some people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

I "introduced" it because it's the answer to your question. Duuuuhhhh.

Your abysmal short-term memory shouldn't be a problem here, since the Quote function actually shows you the conversation, so I fail to see what you think you're accomplishing.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Next time, try just going back and reading the conversation, instead of instantly forgetting it and requiring it re-explained to you in each post like an Alzheimer's patient.

As for "which rights?" take your happy ass back to 8th grade and redo the section on "reading for comprehension", you illiterate boob. I have no intention of explaining how to understand the English language to someone who purports to be an adult worthy of having a political conversation.

I'm so happy to see you out yourself.

you went off on a rant that speaks to ideological battles today. May as well be honest and admit you like government interfering in the bedrooms and in women's bodies

Actually, she asserted just the opposite.
The government has NO business in bedrooms and NO BUSINESS in our bodies. Which is why there should be no federally funded clinics, and no laws at all regarding who can be killed and who can't.

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

I didn't word it very well lol.
The government has no business LEGALIZING killing for some people.

The federal government has no business saying ANYTHING about killing people one way or another.

State governments morally shouldn't make it okay to kill people just because you want to, but at least it's LEGALLY their issue to speak on.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Esoteric Meaning "

* Contrived Words *

No. Aborting babies is not about "women's bodies", has never been, and will never be, and I don't give a rat's fat, furry ass how many posts on this message board you link to.

The term babies refers to those who babble and are between the age of birth and early childhood ; and , as birth is a requirement for equal protection - that includes a wright to life that if violated would constitute murder , aborting babies is an absurd application of language .

It is correct to state that until birth a faeioutys is the private property of the mother and , in that the meaning of an after life is to literally pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring , the faeioutys is at least figuratively the body of the mother .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Self Destruction "

* Reciprocity *

State governments morally shouldn't make it okay to kill people just because you want to, but at least it's LEGALLY their issue to speak on.

The 9th amendment precedes the 10th amendment and to those who claim to be anti-federalists , hello from an anti-statist , that is hello from an individualist .

A double entendre is applied to removing a wright to life , as when one removes the wright to life of another they in fact remove their own wright to life in the process - albeit the latter typically occurs through due process , and once a determination of guilt is decided then the wright to life is removed , and the wright to life may be returned or the individual may become subject to natural freedoms ( moral relativism of nature ) and dispatched through capital punishment .

 

[Cecilie1200]

" Esoteric Meaning "

* Contrived Words *

No. Aborting babies is not about "women's bodies", has never been, and will never be, and I don't give a rat's fat, furry ass how many posts on this message board you link to.

The term babies refers to those who babble and are between the age of birth and early childhood ; and , as birth is a requirement for equal protection - that includes a wright to life that if violated would constitute murder , aborting babies is an absurd application of language .

It is correct to state that until birth a faeioutys is the private property of the mother and , in that the meaning of an after life is to literally pass on ones genetic identity through ones offspring , the faeioutys is at least figuratively the body of the mother .

Excuse me, Noah Webster, but I don't recall asking you what YOU thought the word meant; and now that you have asserted it without being asked, let me take the opportunity to tell you that I value your English "mastery" not at all. Let me also point out that you should learn the difference between "wright" and "right" before venturing to tell anyone anything about words.

I can't even respond to the gibberish masquerading as a second paragraph, because it looks like your cat was taking dictation, and I have no clue what the hell you were trying to say. I doubt it will become more valuable with actual, real words, but give it a shot.

 

[JBvM]

In 1958, in the case of NAACP v. Alabama, the SCOTUS ruled:

"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance …"

I won't publish a wall of text, but use that as a starting point to discuss the subject.

Puzzled here. I see Justice Douglas' words. Were they included in the Alabama case?

The quoted portion came from Justice John Marshall Harlan II who wrote the majority opinion.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II? Oh, the grandson. I know them from Jeffrey Rosen's books. Led me to researching who these men were. Fascinating men.


What am I missing here? You're saying John Marshall Harlan II, words contained in the Alabama case are - "The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance ?"

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Flowers, 377 U.S. 288 (1964)

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Justice Douglas, writing for the Court.
Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut.
Appellant Buxton is a licensed physician and a professor at the Yale Medical School who
served as Medical Director for the League at its Center in New Haven...

The [Court’s] cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras,
formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various
guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the
First Amendment is one, as we have seen.​

 

[JBvM]

Actually, she asserted just the opposite.
The government has NO business in bedrooms and NO BUSINESS in our bodies. Which is why there should be no federally funded clinics, and no laws at all regarding who can be killed and who can't.

Oh! Did I sign up for a class in faulty logic? My mistake.

 

[JBvM]

In fairness, I have no problem with the few federal laws about murder that we have, like it being a federal crime to kill a federal employee while he's doing his job. But yeah, it's fair to say the federal government has no business monkeying around in state-level criminal justice.

Ahh, and Prof KG brought along her teaching assistant (Faulty Logic 101)

 

[Valerie]

"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations..."

 

[anotherlife]

Right of privacy is impossible, because a centralized government can always invent a criminal charge that make you ineligible for it.