Should the Right of Privacy be added

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Crawdadr, Jul 3, 2018.

?

Should the Constitution be amended to add a Right to Privacy?

  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    5 vote(s)
    35.7%
  3. other

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  2. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    23,725
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No need. The 9th Amendment clearly says that we have more rights than just the enumerated rights.
     
  3. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You say that yet couldn't a Supreme court ruling change that? Here is an example of a Supreme Court Justice that did not agree with that interpretation of the 9th.

    Justice Hugo Black
    My Brother GOLDBERG has adopted the recent discovery that the Ninth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause, can be used by this Court as authority to strike down all state legislation which this Court thinks violates "fundamental principles of liberty and justice", or is contrary to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people". ... [O]ne would certainly have to look far beyond the language of the Ninth Amendment to find that the Framers vested in this Court any such awesome veto powers over lawmaking, either by the States or by the Congress. Nor does anything in the history of the Amendment offer any support for such a shocking doctrine. The whole history of the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights points the other way, and the very material quoted by my Brother GOLDBERG shows that the Ninth Amendment was intended to protect against the idea that, "by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power" to the Federal Government, "those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government [the United States], and were consequently insecure." That Amendment was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government", but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. ... [F]or a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs.

    Now consider if one Judge of this bent sees this could not other judges also see this? As such without an enumerated amendment the right to Privacy is strictly based on the "opinions" of 9 judges. Which as has been seen opinions by supreme court justices can change over time.
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    68,006
    Likes Received:
    16,219
    Trophy Points:
    113
    most of the privacy violations are today done by corporations and consumers give it up willingly in trade for target ads vs just random ads

    the government should always need a warrant
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  5. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    66,008
    Likes Received:
    10,487
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to privacy is pretty much covered in law.. as in where can you reasonably expect privacy. I don't think we need to change the Constitution.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  6. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But the right to privacy is based on the interpretation of an amendment that was never intended. As such a new interpretation could be made. It has happened multiple times in our history. As such without it actually being enumerated it is not guaranteed. Think on this you said "pretty much." Do you want any of your rights to be "pretty much" guaranteed or would you prefer your rights to "be" guaranteed?

    Or for others is the right of privacy even a concern of yours?
     
  7. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So does that mean you do not think there is such a thing as a right to privacy beyond the 4th amendment?
     
  8. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,073
    Likes Received:
    3,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Abortion is not really an issue of privacy.

    It is an issue of choice by a woman who does not want to gestate a child.

    There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about that.

    It would take an amendment to codify such a thing.

    That's why Roe is bad law.
     
    vman12 likes this.
  9. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,073
    Likes Received:
    3,172
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A very liberal society could and would rule that an unborn human has rights.

    It is simply a matter of majority rule. However to amend the U.S. Constitution would require a super-majority.

    I don't see this ever happening.

    The best that could happen is that the Trump SCOTUS as reconstituted would simply repeal Roe and make abortion a states rights issue again. This is a realistic possibility.

    Kennedy is retiring. Ginsberg is drooling from old age.
     
  10. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    23,725
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no need to add an amendment for rights. The 9th Amendment clearly says that the enumerated rights are not our only rights.
     
  11. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is an interpretation done by the supreme court. One not agreed to by all Justices that have sat on the court. It could also not be agreed to by future courts who could over turn that interpretation. Risky if you consider the Right of privacy important. Do you actually believe that no court interpretation can be changed by a ideologically changed supreme court?
     
  12. Tergara

    Tergara Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2018
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I very much support an amendment for a right to privacy. The government has too many ways to grab information on us without our permission or a court order right now. It seems that the executive branch is always trying to reach out, only to get slapped by the judicial branch. If we don't codify it, it only takes one or two bad rulings to make us into an always watched police state.
     
  13. Swede Hansen

    Swede Hansen Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    May 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it should not be codified. God only knows what a can of worms this would open.
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    15,981
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm reminded of Madison's proposed amendment guaranteeing freedom of conscience, and of wondering how the hell he imagined something like that would be enforceable.

    But as for privacy, we can hardly discuss the possibilities in any depth without an actual proposal to pick apart, so let's try this on for size:

    Every legal resident of the United States shall be afforded the right to privacy.​

    Two obvious questions:

    1. Since many legal residents are children, does this mean their parents can't monitor their internet activity?

    2. If your next door neighbor decides you show inordinate interest in the goings-on in his back yard, do you want him to have redress in federal court?

    Those came to mind immediately, but surely plenty of others could be thought of.
     
  15. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    25,967
    Likes Received:
    4,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please give me a sample text of your proposed amendment.
     
  16. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    6,183
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think we can use yguy's one for a point of reference. Though I bet there are plenty far smarter then me who could come up with others. We have been told that there IS a right to privacy by the courts. The problem I see is that 9 people say it is a right, then make decisions based on that right, and 9 different people can say it is not a right because it is not actually stated anywhere and based on opinion.

    What about you do you have what would be good verbiage for such an amendment?
     
  17. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    25,967
    Likes Received:
    4,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yguy's text shows the problem with actually coming up with something that makes sense rather than opening a Pandora's box in which parents are banned from their kids rooms or looking at someone becomes a constitutional violation. I think the proper way to to treat this I think is not by constitutional amendment but the fact that the Constitution only grants enumerated powers to the Federal government.

    Besides, we already have a 4th Amendment.
     
  18. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    15,981
    Likes Received:
    383
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I suggest you look at how that's phrased versus the phrasing of the enumeration of every individual right in the Constitution.
     
  19. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    23,725
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. When my kids were at home, they didn't have freedom of speech or of religion, so why would they have a right to privacy with me? I do agree that my kids' internet activity (on devices owned by me or them) should not be allowed to be monitored or restricted by the government.
    2. Rights only protect us from the government, not from non-governmental people.
     
  20. AlifQadr

    AlifQadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2016
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Isn't the right to privacy enshrined in 4A?

    Being secure in your person, your house, your papers and effects is stating that you have the right to privacy. Where this right stops is when you make something public, such as narcotics and alcohol use in a public arena because said person has involved other people by extension of their behavior.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018

Share This Page