What is the bill of rights really?

[Contumacious]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The right to privacy and any other right are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


The Bill of Rights , demanded by James Madison protected our rights from the Federal AND State governments.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven, an extremely correct argument against their adoption :

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

 

[peach174]

It's a perfect example of why we have such a large government. The far left all think like that.
They all think that the bill of rights is implied and they think that they can interpret the words to fit their ideology.

This is ignorant, meaningless gibberish.

It's a fact!!
Don't take my word for it do the research on it yourself.
Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

No. People like you do though. You lie through your teeth. Just like right now.

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

 

[Disir]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The right to privacy and any other right are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


The Bill of Rights , demanded by James Madison protected our rights from the Federal AND State governments.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

 

[Disir]

This is ignorant, meaningless gibberish.

It's a fact!!
Don't take my word for it do the research on it yourself.
Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

No. People like you do though. You lie through your teeth. Just like right now.

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

 

[peach174]

It's a fact!!
Don't take my word for it do the research on it yourself.
Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

No. People like you do though. You lie through your teeth. Just like right now.

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

 

[Disir]

No. People like you do though. You lie through your teeth. Just like right now.

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

 

[peach174]

That is the lefts problem they don't believe when the truth is spoken and turn and call people names rather than doing actual research.
Look it up.

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

 

[Disir]

You haven't done any research. You have demonstrated that in this thread. In fact, the Bill of Rights is apparently completely foreign to you. It's far more important for you to dermonize Liberals than it is to pay attention to silly things like the Constitution.

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

 

[peach174]

I am very well educated on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
I am not demonizing Liberals it is a fact that they do believe that.
They learned it from Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven.

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

 

[Disir]

You failed to demonstrate your education on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because it was more important for you to demonize Liberals. As it is now. You haven't done any research.

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

News Flash! It most certainly was.

Prior to incorporation and those rights being individual rights, what was it?
Note that those rights incorporated are you against the State.

Oh,that's right............................Federal Limitations.

 

[Contumacious]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The right to privacy and any other right are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


The Bill of Rights , demanded by James Madison protected our rights from the Federal AND State governments.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

 

[Disir]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

The right to privacy and any other right are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


The Bill of Rights , demanded by James Madison protected our rights from the Federal AND State governments.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court? Go to a park?

 

[peach174]

What do you think you are doing right now, with the commits you have made from the conservatives in this thread?

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

News Flash! It most certainly was.

Prior to incorporation and those rights being individual rights, what was it?
Note that those rights incorporated are you against the State.

Oh,that's right............................Federal Limitations.

I will say that you are right that The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.
Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.
Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

 

[Disir]

Try again.

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

News Flash! It most certainly was.

Prior to incorporation and those rights being individual rights, what was it?
Note that those rights incorporated are you against the State.

Oh,that's right............................Federal Limitations.

I will say that you are right that The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.
Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.
Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

It is customary to link to where you have lifted the information from. Here:
The Right of Privacy Is it Protected by the Constitution

Thank you.

 

[2aguy]

This is ignorant, meaningless gibberish.

Clayton...come on...you know you aren't supposed to leave the day room...and you had your computer privileges suspended...call the nice nurse and have her take you back to your room...

 

[peach174]

There is no try.
You own words have condemned you.

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

News Flash! It most certainly was.

Prior to incorporation and those rights being individual rights, what was it?
Note that those rights incorporated are you against the State.

Oh,that's right............................Federal Limitations.

I will say that you are right that The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.
Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.
Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

It is customary to link to where you have lifted the information from. Here:
The Right of Privacy Is it Protected by the Constitution

Thank you.

Sorry I thought I did.
Thanks for putting it up for me.

 

[Disir]

Bullshit. You got nothing. Just like you had before.

Did you see an express Right to Privacy? You did not. Therefore, it must come from somewhere. Yes? It's implied.
But, rather than acknowledge that you went on a tangent about Liberals.

I mean, that's why you are on this thread. Right? Not because you technically give a damn about the Bill of Rights but because you found an area to talk shit about liberals. Which is moar important to you.

News Flash!
The Bill of Rights was never called nor has ever been called the Bill of Federal Limitation.
When you write things like this people are not going to take you very seriously.

News Flash! It most certainly was.

Prior to incorporation and those rights being individual rights, what was it?
Note that those rights incorporated are you against the State.

Oh,that's right............................Federal Limitations.

I will say that you are right that The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial.
Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment.
Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

It is customary to link to where you have lifted the information from. Here:
The Right of Privacy Is it Protected by the Constitution

Thank you.

Sorry I thought I did.
Thanks for putting it up for me.

We're cool.

 

[Contumacious]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

The right to privacy and any other right are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.


The Bill of Rights , demanded by James Madison protected our rights from the Federal AND State governments.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court?

Bullshit.

There are PRIVATE libraries, roads, schools and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

 

[Disir]

Now, go spread your new found comprehension of the right to privacy to jackoffs found on sites like this:
There Is No Right to Privacy 8211 LewRockwell.com

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period. It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything. A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

Parts of the First, the Third, the Fourth, the Fifth via the Fourteenth.

Madison was opposed to the bill of rights until he needed to get the job done. It was people like Mason that pushed for it.

Alexander Hamilton made a very persuasive, and time has proven he was correct ,

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

As was Mason, if it's not enumerated then you won't have it. It's a 50/50. But more importantly, the government exists via consent as defined by Locke. Did you enjoy the fruits? Then you gave consent.

HUH?

That's argument against the parasites.

They are the ones seeking favors from the bureaucrats.

Those of us who have never demanded nor accepted , any favor from the government did not enjoy the "fruits"

.

Go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court?

Bullshit.

There are PRIVATE libraries, roads, schools and Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Did you go to a library? Drive down the road? Public school? Call the cops? Take someone to court?

 

[martybegan]

A lesson for liberals. The bill of rights is to protect the people from government. Not something the government is free to change and reinterpret to gain greater control over the people.

Local Law Enforcement Chipping Away at the Fourth Amendment Peter Van Buren

its time to stand up for and take back our rights. send any and every politician who even hints at infringing on our rights packing. Zero tolerance for their reinterpretations.


The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the People from their government. That's quite literally becoming history today as new challenges, now from local law enforcement, chip away at the Fourth Amendment's protections of privacy. New laws and devices spread spying on Americans to the local level.
A Brief Explanation of Post-Constitutional America
The cornerstone of the Bill of Rights was that the People grant exceptions to those rights to the Government. Absent those specific exceptions, the rest of the stuff was inalienable, not up for grabs, not dependent in any way on Government's decision to grant or withhold them. Constitutional America was clearly imperfect, but the underlying premise spoke of a striving toward an ideal.
The cornerstone of Post-Constitutional America is just the opposite. The People have what rights the Government chooses to allow them to have, such that privacy is the exception, free speech a variable, torture a tool to be used or withheld as the Government finds appropriate. It is a turning on its head of Constitutional America, back to a time when a tyrant and king (may we call old King George an "evil dictator" to use the preferred language of today?) controlled Americans' daily lives by decree.

A lesson for whatever you may call yourself.

The Bill of Rights is actually called the Bill of Federal Limitations as they were between the Federal government and the State governments. They didn't pertain to you and I.

They didn't pertain to you and I until they were incorporated. Not all of those listed have been incorporated.
Bill Of Rights

The right to privacy is not listed. It's implied. Liberals understand this and attempt to protect it.
The group of people that you need to educate are those that insist that the right to privacy is not listed and, therefore, not a real right. Those are right wing folks. Please educate them.

It is not that it does not exist, its that it does not supersede the inherent right of the State Legislatures, my misgivings with implied rights aside.

Separate but equal was an implied right of the States, and look what that got us.

But, it does.

Says you, and 5 of 9 wrong un-elected lawyers.