Did I say that? Noooooo.........

They don't do all that as you well know, and I don't accept lectures on conservatism from liberals. Conservatives are anti-crime, and pro-defense of the country, and support reasonable measures to further those goals.

No, the nude isn't - and they can watch me pick my nose - what do I care? Wait, I'm gonna fart on the internet ........ hold on.............just a second..........almost!... BLLLLLAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!! Whew!

Watch out - the black helicopters are out to get you!

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

You just said it, the Constitution implies a Right to Privacy. While it is not stated explicitly, its certainly in there.

This courts in this case acknowledged the Right to Privacy implicit within the Constitution.

As is the Constitution itself. What's your point?

We are citizens of both. I'm sure thats tough to grasp, what with your fervent worship of America and all, but International Law applies to us as well.

It was signed by the US, and once it was ratified became International Law, non-binding, but important all the same.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

You sure implied it. "I'm not a criminal. Anyone can stare at me till they go blind." Thats pretty much the gist of "what are you afraid of if you have nothing to hide." In that case I'd love for you to stick a camera in your bathroom and bedroom and broadcast it to the web. I'm sure all the perverts out there would have a field day.

Just because you're comfortable with voyeurism doesn't mean the rest of us are. The fact is we all have private matters that we wish to stay private. Unless a government agency has probably cause to be investigating a crime they should keep their nose where it belongs, namely out of the citizens business.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think of all the ways in which invasions of privacy could be used negatively, you insufferable hyperbolic twit. Have we forgotton Watergate already?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Well, everyone else in the world seems to think so, but we don't seem to think so.....

No it isn't. This was one of the fictions that came out of Roe v. Wade, by the most tortured unconvincing "reasoning" imaginable - it's not much more than liberal legislation from the bench.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

The courts ruled on the right to privacy before Roe v. Wade as I already stated.

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Oh yeah, senile Justice Douglas' infamous "penumbras" and "emanations".

If the libs rule the court again, which seems likely, what kind of constitutional jurisprudence will we get then? The constitution's "smell"? Its "vibes"??

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

I'm sure you already know it takes more than one Justice to pass a decision. In this case it had 7.

And seriously, Blade, you honestly don't think people have a right to be secure in their privacy? What are you, some kind of peeping tom?

__________________
DILIGITE JUSTITIAM QUI JUDICATIS TERRAM

Privacy hasn't really been a major concern until the information age, when the advance of computers allowed for massive amounts of data on individuals to be collected, shared and stored by the government and others. With the benefit of hindsight, the founding fathers might have included a provision regarding privacy.

Doesn't Amendment 9 in the Bill of Rights indicate that it is possible for other rights to exist without being stated in the constitution. Perhaps privacy is one of these rights.

I don't know how far state constitutions go regarding privacy, but I am guessing almost all government departments have some kind of protections in place for peoples personal information.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

That is true. And that is the way it works "today", especially in internet law. Different states have different laws. But, if I "cross state lines" (like if I'm in CA and I hack into your system in NY), then "federal" law applies. So, this "internet" thing is kinda the "information equivalent" of the Islamist terrorist thing - it's "trans-national", right? It "crosses state lines".

And I mean, the gov in its infinite wisdom, is kinda responding the same way to the privacy deal, as it has to the Islamist clowns. "Clobber 'em, clobber 'em!". They're mostly scared to death of the idea that "they" won't have access to this information, 'cause "they're" technologically "behind" somehow, so I mean, they do stupid stuff like legislating against cryptography they can't break, and stuff like that. Right?

Yes, you're right about the 9th, that kinda applies "specifically" to states though, and it doesn't speak to the concept of "implied rights" (I don't think, unless someone wants to tell me otherwise). But that right to privacy.... hmm.... well, there's kinda two pieces to that - one is, the concept of "logic", which means, that you really wouldn't have some of those things that are in the Constitution, unless there were a value on privacy - but then the second piece, is that the "reasons" for the Constitution are "elsewhere" - the Constitution is a "mechanistic" document, but people often refer to things like the Declaration of Independence as being the "reasons" for some of those Rights and such - so, you know, privacy would fall under the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", or some such thing.

But "technically", it would make matters a whole lot easier if they'd just amend the constitution and put the darn thing in there "explicitly", but I mean, the way things are now, the darn conservatives would be all yelling and screaming about some kinda liberal plot or seomthin', so it probably wouldn't pass (which is kinda ironic when you think about it, 'cause the conservatives oughta be the ones who truly value privacy, yes?).