Would you support a new constitutional amendment meant to guarantee American citizens a right to privacy?

I'm not sure how much good that would do. The government isn't in the habit of being restrained by the Constitution as is.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I agree with Ikari. The right principles of government are spelled out very well in the Constitution as it stands, but that doesn't stop both liberals and conservatives from violating it.

1. There are important jurists (Bork and Thomas among others) that argue that the constitution does not currently guarantee a general right to privacy. I think that such a right is important and necessary. We Americans have a deep historical tradition that assumes we have the 'right to be left alone.'
2. Moving to support such an amendment would put politicians in the position of either favoring a right of privacy or disapproving it.

This is a basic but unarticulated right of people everywhere.

You loony left wing nut jobs can't name one single person this has effected. I want our government to protect us as does 85% of the rest of America using any and all means necessary.

This is the irony of it; many of you on the left support or sympathize with regimes like Castro's Cuba, or other socialized or dictatorial goverments, where there is no freedom of the press or any privacy whatsoever, and yet you find the NSA trying to capture the communication from those that are trying to destroy our nation, you may get your wish. Keep tying their hands and eventually there will be a disaster of the likes you never bargained for.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Great points, Bronco!!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

No, I don't. We'd have to do away with cameras in stores to catch people who steal and snatch children...........cameras at toll booths to catch those who don't pay...........cameras at intersections to catch people who run red lights..........security cameras in parking lots that catch the guys who kidnap, rape and murder little girls (a recent case)..........and on and on....

Just the other day we got a loan. The Credit Union took our picture.

So, exactly what would such an Amendment mean to everyone? I dare say not all of it would be positive like you think.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I think that the Fourth Amendment already sufficiently guarantees the necessary level of privacy. Bush has violated this Amendment repeatedly, and that has to be stopped. A privacy amendment, however, apart from being redundant, would be distorted by the ACLU and similar organizations just as they have distorted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. There is only one Amendment that we need added to our current Constitution, and that is a Human Life Amendment.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

The fourth admendment covers it. It is just up to the powers that be to enforce it.

And Bronco:

1) Of course no one knows who was effected, that is why there is no national security risk like the President claims, unless having public acknowledgement that we will adhere to our own constitution is a security risk. That is all that was disclosed. No investigations were compromised because no specific details were disclosed

2) Yea, yea, the old mushroom cloud scare tactic. Having civil liberties is a risk. Law enforcement would be much easier without them. No one denies that. It is just that real American patriots view freedom and civil liberties as greater than destroying our rights because you are cowering in fear from a few terrorist nutjobs.

I don't care if 99.9999999999999% of America wishes the government to keep us safe by any means necessary. We do not live in a democracy, this is a Republic and the citizens of the free and sovereign states have rights. The government does not have any and all necessary means open to it, it must act by the constraints of the Constitution, and they can not act in a way that threatens or violates the rights of the citizens.

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH