However, the quasi-constitutional Right to Privacy has been used as the means to justify many of the Supreme Court rulings on reproductive rights: namely the rulings that struck unconstitutional state legislation baring Abortion and criminalizing Doctor consultation with Married couples on contraception (namely, the pill).
Many believe that a constitutional right to privacy doesn't exist, and that the only protection our personal lives have or should have from government intrusion is the will of the majority. These people would agree that if the majority deem, say, dildos or condoms to be amoral and insufferable products in society, that a law striking their presence is perfectly legitimate, regardless of their immeasurably inconsequential effect on persons outside of the people that willingly use them.
Others believe that the Government should stay the fuck out of their private affairs, regardless of the majorities opinion on any given matter, when their private affairs do not realistically concern anyone other than themselves. These people might argue that recreational stimulants that bear minimal health or safety risks should not be subject to legislation.
Where do you stand?
Freedom of its people to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't jeapordize America.
The only flaw with that core belief is what people think jeopardizes America.
Fundies will think that abortion is bad for the country, or that the use of drugs is bad for the country, or for the extreme Catholics, that contraception is bad for the country, or the opposite of fundies, which I don't really have a name for, probably extreme left, will say that war is bad, or blah blah, military spending is bad, having a military is bad. So no I'm not one sided, both sides have their extremes of idiocy. , and that it has always been the judicial brach to cut away at some of the more extreme allegations of threat in the sake of the constitution. I think they need to look more at what the constitution means as a whole, then at clause by clause, even though that is what they have to work with.
I also think the right to privacy isn't there in writing so that people can't really hide behind it when they do jeopardize the country, ie terrorist cells saying we had no right to run intelligence on them while they plotted to blow some shit up.
I think that the system we have is... like a bunch of loose gears, with some room to move in, but overall, its run pretty good so far, I don't think it needs to change. I just hope the judicial branch doesn't get swayed too much in one direction. I can live with bias legislative and executive branches so long as there is a moderate judicial to keep it from getting out of hand.
This poorly formatted opinion was brought to you by coffee and donuts, and the letter Q.
edit: what the fuck is "contorted?" CBTao fucked around with this message on 08-10-2005 at 03:32 PM.
The right or lack thereof of privacy should be decided on a case to case basis?
This is pretty much saying there is no constitutional right to privacy.
quote:Contorted = Twisted
CBTao really knows where their towel is...
I think that the core belief of America, and the Constitution, is freedom.Freedom of its people to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't jeapordize America.
The only flaw with that core belief is what people think jeopardizes America.
{long descriptive paragraph was here}
I also think the right to privacy isn't there in writing so that people can't really hide behind it when they do jeopardize the country, ie terrorist cells saying we had no right to run intelligence on them while they plotted to blow some shit up.
I think that the system we have is... like a bunch of loose gears, with some room to move in, but overall, its run pretty good so far, I don't think it needs to change. I just hope the judicial branch doesn't get swayed too much in one direction. I can live with bias legislative and executive branches so long as there is a moderate judicial to keep it from getting out of hand.
This poorly formatted opinion was brought to you by coffee and donuts, and the letter Q.
edit: what the fuck is "contorted?"
I agree with pretty much everything you've said here. The reason there's no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution is that there's no way to write it explicitly without making it obsurdly abuseable. By alluding to an implied right to privacy, it limits the potential for abuse, but still makes it generally understood that people are supposed to have the right to privacy whenever possible. The rest is up to the various branches to enforce, even if they frequently disagree, and don't always do a perfect job.
quote:But what if you don't do anything that makes the government say that, and they say it anyway?
When they turned on the Infinite Improbability Drive, Manticore stammered,
The word constitunional means "within the constitution". So no, we dont have a Right to Privacy in the constitution. In my opinion, privacy is a priviledge. If you do something that makes the government say, "this guy might be up to something", there goes your priviledge.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I hate it when politicians include moral choices, like abortion, in their platforms. That's not something for the government to make the decision on. They don't have to live with the results.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage impressed everyone with:
The right to privacy and whether or not government should legislate morality are different questions.
Though they are different questions, the questions sprout from the same actions.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan spewed forth this undeniable truth:
The government has no business in my church, my church has no business in my government, and neither of them have any business in my bedroom.
I like the way you phrased that, I'll have to steal that.
quote:
Demos had this to say about John Romero:
I like the way you phrased that, I'll have to steal that.
I was going to say "neither of them have any business with me and whoever fondles my genitals" but too many religious jokes came up.
quote:
x--Lyinar Ka`BaelO-('-'Q) :
So long as a person's actions affect no one but him or herself, or consenting parties (mostly in the instance of sexual practices), then the government should have no right to legislate our personal lives. Only when it steps into the realm of directly affecting a non-consenting party should the government stick its nose in.
It's your opinion then that things like doing and distributing hard drugs like heroin and meth, or pedophilia and incest with consenting parties are A OK so long as they're done within the confines of your own home?
The fact is that the answer is both yes and no. There is a right to privacy so long as you do not use it to break the law. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 08-10-2005 at 10:54 PM.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Maradon! said:
It's your opinion then that things like doing and distributing hard drugs like heroin and meth, or pedophilia and incest with consenting parties are A OK so long as they're done within the confines of your own home?The fact is that the answer is both yes and no. There is a right to privacy so long as you do not use it to break the law.
Well, as far as I know there are no laws against incest.
quote:
Maradon!'s account was hax0red to write:
It's your opinion then that things like doing and distributing hard drugs like heroin and meth, or pedophilia and incest with consenting parties are A OK so long as they're done within the confines of your own home?The fact is that the answer is both yes and no. There is a right to privacy so long as you do not use it to break the law.
Distributing hard drugs harms others, and pedophilia and incest are by definition non-consentual activities.
quote:
At least I'm not Pvednes
Distributing hard drugs harms others, and pedophilia and incest are by definition non-consentual activities.
I get pedophilia, since children aren't considered responsible adults, but why is incest considered non-consentual?
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Pirotess:
I get pedophilia, since children aren't considered responsible adults, but why is incest considered non-consentual?
It's kind of like the teacher-student scenario, only more so. It's a power/trust abuse thing--even if lil Missy is legal, she cannot really be considered to give genuine consent to Daddy, see? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-10-2005 at 11:19 PM.
Scary to think about.
Some people are like Slinkys... Not really good for anything, But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
quote:
Pvednesing:
Distributing hard drugs harms others, and pedophilia and incest are by definition non-consentual activities.
Doing them doesn't, and distributing drugs doesn't directly harm anybody.
But the point is not my specific examples, the point is there are limits to the right to privacy when it comes to committing illegal activities.
quote:
Maradon! thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Doing them doesn't, and distributing drugs doesn't directly harm anybody.But the point is not my specific examples, the point is there are limits to the right to privacy when it comes to committing illegal activities.
Distributing drugs has nothing to do with privacy... that's the whole "Right to Regulate Interstate Commerce" part of the constitution.
quote:
Pvednes's fortune cookie read:
It's kind of like the teacher-student scenario, only more so. It's a power/trust abuse thing--even if lil Missy is legal, she cannot really be considered to give genuine consent to Daddy, see?
That's not the only type of incest.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Noxhil2 booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Distributing drugs has nothing to do with privacy... that's the whole "Right to Regulate Interstate Commerce" part of the constitution.
For starters, that's idiotic.
Second, what the hell are you talking about when you say distributing drugs aren't related to privacy? Who said they were? Did you even understand anything I wrote?
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about dark elf butts:
That's not the only type of incest.
No-one was implying that it was. That's just an example.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Maradon! said this:
It's your opinion then that things like doing and distributing hard drugs like heroin and meth, or pedophilia and incest with consenting parties are A OK so long as they're done within the confines of your own home?The fact is that the answer is both yes and no. There is a right to privacy so long as you do not use it to break the law.
The problem with your example is that there are already other laws covering them. Non-consensual sex, or sex with a minor, or sex with a consenting minor of a certain age, are all covered by existing laws. They're covered in the assorted rape laws.
What happened with Rick Santorum (Republican Congressman) and his statement regarding whether or not the State of Texas vs Lawrence decision was misrepresented. The media largely said he was comparing homosexual activity (in particular sodomy) to bestiality, incest, and polygamy. What he SAID was that it wasn't the place of government to legislate what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And he was absolutely right. Under the SoTX v. Lawrence decision, polygamists and married first cousins whose marriage was dissolved have challenged for the right to live things their way.
You can't legislate that sodomy is legal without people arguing that their alternative lifestyles are equally viable. You can't legislate AGAINST sodomy without taking a dangerous step into the realm of Big Brother regulating what sexual acts you take part in.
As for drug users, this ties into the legalization argument. If you're toking weed in your house, but holding down a steady job and have your bills paid, then it's really no worse than you drinking alcohol in your home. When you become a problem to society, there are laws to handle it.
But that's the case in all these "secrecy" issues. If you're suspected of breaking the law, there's a proper procedure to follow. It involves getting warrants, monitoring the suspect (under the permission of a responsible body, usually your police lieutenant or captain), and eventually going by the books, and then you're punished for a quantifiable infraction.
That's what's frightening about the Patriot Act: the limited definition of "Terrorist" means that suspected Terrorists have these fundamental rights waived or suspended for an extended period of time.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
This one time, at Cass camp:
Yes.
Gasp! Cass post! <pounces the bunny> ^.^
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Cuba:
Well, as far as I know there are no laws against incest.
There are, though I believe it's covered by state laws rather than federal.
quote:
Katrinity had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Gasp! Cass post! <pounces the bunny> ^.^
(snugs, sneaks back into lurking)
