Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[HandleTheTruth]

Judge alito says Americans don't have privacy protections.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

That is why if you have a wise government? You behead all kings and queens, and get a constitution that outlines a Constitutional republic,. that specifically guaranties rights to the people.

Only idiots live under a system of government that bestows privileges to some by birth, like some sort of caste system or slavery system, while criticizing other's governments, which are more merit based systems, and are far superior.

But thn you are tied to a constitution that values gun ownership over water or clean air. That has nothing to do with any God. It is just what a few slavers decided hundreds of years ago..

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You're missing the entire point of the Constitution.

Medieval thinking said that people had rights only because someone (such as the King) granted them, and since he granted them, he can take them away. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke said that many rights are not granted by humans but by "our Creator" (whoever you feel that to be) and therefore governments cannot take them away. The miracle of the Constitution was that the Founding Fathers established that idea as one of our bedrock principles, making us the first nation in the history of humanity to be built on that idea.

Our entire nation is built on the idea that the Constitution doesn't grant anyone any rights, it only lists the ones that everyone, everywhere has. We only control what happens within our own borders, of course, but once you step inside our jurisdiction, the Constitution instructs our government to defend the rights that your Creator gave you, no matter who you are.

The magna carta granted rights to the British. It was signed under duress by the king at thee time and has never been quetioned.
A lot of it forms your constitution. trial by jury,innocent toll proven guilty.

I cant think of anything useful that you can do that I cannot. I think you overplay the constitution because the US is frankly a bit of a mess now and has been for most of its history.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How are drugs not victimless?
Wealthy people to risky drugs legally all the time, like skydiving, skiing, scuba, jet skis, etc.
There are lots of people who die getting their legal adrenaline high, like Sonny Bono and a Kennedy who killed themselves skiing.
The only difference with chemical drugs is that the poor can't afford the legal drugs.
If drugs were legalized, then all the accidental deaths, shootings, etc. would end.
So it is the police who are responsible for all the deaths from drugs, not the drugs themselves.

Not the drugs but the dealing, gang wars, theft, car jacking. Not discussing ODs.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump called the political response to COVID, the "democratic hoax".

A detailed timeline of all the ways Trump failed to respond to the coronavirus

The federal coronavirus response shows a president dead set on avoiding responsibility for the pandemic.

www.vox.com

What was he wrong about?

 

[Rigby5]

In the 1860's, the United States ceased, for all intents and purposes, operating as a constitutional republic, and began operating as a centralized deep state oligarchy.

Theoretically, you are correct, they should be infinite, if, we were still following the Constitution, but we aren't, it is just a pretext, a ruse, to mollify the masses.

That fact of the matter is, yes, the civil war WAS about slavery, but the Casus belli, was the federal government's violation of the state's sovereign rights. There is no prohibition in the Constitution against states succeeding from the Union, so?

According to the 9th amendment, as you say, the rights of the states, and of the people, should, hypothetically be "infinite." That is a right that the founders felt was reserved for the southern states if they could not resolve that issue peacefully. The northern industrialists were offended and put out, by the sheer economic scale, and the lack of economic development that did not take place because of slavery. . . the northern oligarchs didn't care anymore for the poor, drafted cannon fodder of the civil war, than they did about the black man.

Nor did the oligarchs back then, care about the damage they were doing to the constitution back then, anymore than our leaders do to ours, every day now. Back then. . . they destroyed the protections of the 9th.

Today? Our generation's leaders?

The leaders we have today, no matter the party, are busy destroying the protections of the First. During the pandemic, no gatherings, stopping some from protesting, no religious ceremony, and folks just accepted that. Now, there are some websites the government actually blocks you from visiting. . . I shit you not. . .

I would normally just hit "like", but that was such a good post that I thought it should be repeated.
Funny how so many people think they support the idea of a republic, but then think the majority should dictate, government is a source of legal authority, and legislators can create any law they want.

 

[Rigby5]

When the basis for your society is survival through war, then you end up with a society that is too violent.

The original evolutionary source for society is survival through cooperation, empathy, self sacrifice, etc.
But when society invents surplus production (agriculture and technology), wealth, and currency, then you get mercenaries, crime, and war.

All societies have a choice if they want to defend against greedy violence, or engage in greedy violence
When you choose engaging in greedy violence, like ancient Rome, 1600 Spain, WWI France/England, current US, then your own social order breaks down and your own society soon falls apart, even though you have the technological ability to destroy others in the process.

So I agree with you.

 

[Rigby5]

True, a doctor-patient relationship should be a private affair, but that doesn't mean a doctor and patient can just agree to do any procedure. There are still laws in place to prevent certain things. Kevorkian comes to mind. Doctors still have to abide by laws and rules. There are procedures that are outlawed in the states.

If the procedure is deemed harmful, they get outlawed.

You're right, the federal government can't outlaw a procedure, its not their place, or is it their place to deem any procedure legal, and force every state to do it. It's the states decision if they want to allow it or not, and if they deem the procedure is not good, they can outlaw it.

If the residents of the state didn't want that law, and their representatives are going against their wishes, then they get voted out, and new representation, who will listen to their constituents, will be voted in.

But where would states get their authority from in order to outlaw any medical procedure?
The only source of legal authority is the defense of the rights of others, so states have no standing when it comes to things like Kevorkian's assisted suicide or abortion.
Any state claiming to have authority over these procedures is obviously criminal because then the legislators would essentially be practicing medicine without a license to do so.
States don't have any inherent authority to make those decisions over the choices of individuals.
It does not matter if the state legislators "deem the procedure is not good", they still have no authority or standing to say anything about it.
Whether or not the majority of voters want it or not is also irrelevant.
We are not a mobocracy, and the majority has no more authority to dictate than legislators do.
The ONLY authority legislators have is to defend the rights of their constituents, and they have no standing when it comes to fetuses, those wishing suicide, etc.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Do we?

Do it?

 

[Rigby5]

That is what the whole thing gets fxxk up. IF it was in the original constitution, what the fxxk we need the nth amendment for? SO, if the left wants abortion right, has the nth amendment, don't say the right was not in the original constitution but it should.

Individual rights could not really be put into the original constitution because states already existed, were gifts from the crown and therefore totally corrupt, but yet the Founders had to cater to states in order to get them to sign on.

So we had to wait for the 14th amendment until we finally got individual rights to be superior to state whims.

 

[Rigby5]

The kid might have a differing opinion if they are allowed to exist long enough.

.

Of course that is correct, but for the kid to exist long enough, the rights of the woman have to first be violated if she doe not want the kid.
Think about it.
There is no stronger instinct than maternal bonding, so if that is not enough to get the kid born, how could anyone have any greater say?

 

[Rigby5]

You are of course completely out to lunch but of course, we've all figured that out already.

Wrong.
For example, the 2nd amendment clearly makes all fed firearms laws totally illegal.
States can have firearm laws, but NOT the feds.
And yet after 1927, congress has illegally passed thousands of federal firearm laws.

 

[Rigby5]

The left has no real argument here because none of us can exercise our rights if it causes bodily injury to another person without their consent.
From the moment of fertilization a separate living being is created with it's own unique human DNA code. This is not a clump of parasitic cells in a womb, it is a living human being developing at a rapid pace & has the same God given right to life as the rest of us

Nice argument, but that fertilized clump of parasitic cells is making illegal demands on the woman's body, that she has the inherent right to deny through abortion.
God does not give anyone rights over anyone else.
If someone makes demands over anyone else that they want to deny, like a bank not handing over their money to a bank robber, then the one making the demands forfeits their rights and can be killed, just like you can shoot a bank robber if necessary.
The inherent right to life is forfeit if you make demands upon anyone else.

 

[Rigby5]

Not the drugs but the dealing, gang wars, theft, car jacking. Not discussing ODs.

All the problems like dealing in cash, gang wars, theft, car jacking, etc., all result from criminalization of drugs.
Same things happened when Prohibition made alcohol illegal.
Profits go through the roof, but has to all be cash, so results in thefts, turf wars, gangs, murder spikes, etc.
ODs are a separate matter.
With Prohibition of alcohol, there also was a purity problems, like of methanol instead of ethanol, just like fentanyl contamination.

 

[Rigby5]

Judge alito says Americans don't have privacy protections.

I hope not, because then he would have to be an idiot.
And it is scary to think idiots could get to the SCOTUS.
But more likely Alito is thinking he has the authority from the inherent rights of the fetus.
But I think he is wrong because the fetus is not in rightful possession, but is essentially a trespasser up to the whims of the woman.

 

[Rigby5]

But thn you are tied to a constitution that values gun ownership over water or clean air. That has nothing to do with any God. It is just what a few slavers decided hundreds of years ago..

Wrong.
Clean air and water are long standing inherent rights going way back in British Common Law, that was recognized as the basis for US Common Law.
It is just not enumerated because almost all individual rights are not and should not be enumerated, since they are infinite.
And there was not that much abuse of water or air back then.

Gun ownership became paramount to the Founders because they were forced to rebel with arms from a corrupt crown that wanted to impose gun control in order to prevent individual rights.
But the fact gun rights are no longer as paramount, does not mean armed rebellion is not cyclically necessary on a regular basis, about ever 400 years or so. So gun control is incredibly foolish and short sighted. The way to reduce violence is to solve social and economic inequality, not gun control.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You want to search my property get a frakking search warrant.

Your uterus, on the other hand, is open like a theme park.

 

[Rigby5]

The magna carta granted rights to the British. It was signed under duress by the king at thee time and has never been quetioned.
A lot of it forms your constitution. trial by jury,innocent toll proven guilty.

I cant think of anything useful that you can do that I cannot. I think you overplay the constitution because the US is frankly a bit of a mess now and has been for most of its history.

Not right to consider any legislation, like the Magna Carta as "granting" rights.
Rights have to already exist, and only be formally recognized, not granted.
If rights do not already exist, then the authority to grant them would not exist.
If rights are "granted", that implies they are arbitrary, so then can as easily so be arbitrarily retracted.
Better to think of rights as inherent truths that finally get the recognition and protection they always deserved.

 

[dblack]

Do we?

The Constitution guarantees all natural rights. Or rather, it ensures that government has no power to violate our rights without a compelling interest. The notion that the Constitution lists our rights is wrong. Underlining that point was the purpose of the Ninth Amendment. But not many people read it these days.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Your uterus, on the other hand, is open like a theme park.

I'm not female and I wouldn't touch yours with miketx 's bag of dicks even if he begged me.

*****CHUCKLE*****