Right to Privacy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:09:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Right to Privacy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is a generic right to privacy included in the US Constitution?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (Other)
 
#6
No (Other)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 43

Author Topic: Right to Privacy  (Read 7326 times)
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

« on: April 22, 2009, 10:18:36 PM »

Absolutely not. There are several provisions that protect privacy in specific circumstances (e.g., the Third Amendment). However, there is no generic or general right to privacy (whatever that might mean).
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2009, 08:20:16 PM »

Yes.  The Right to Privacy is one of the Rights no explicity named in the 9th Amendment.  I don't put abortion under that umbrella, but such a right does exist.

For it to be a substantial "right" in any sense, there would have to be some actual explicit statement to that fact, not simply placed under the entirely vague heading of the 9th amendment.

In a wiki paragraph referencing Robert Bork, this came up, and I think it's most spot on concerning the 9th amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2009, 06:38:38 PM »

Where the right to privacy case law goes awry is in those cases where the judicial branch has reserved to itself alone the authority to determine what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable".

This is where the caveat comes in. unreasonable search and seizure is up to the courts, but  it's no guaranteed protection against intrusive behavior, particularly surveillance or confidential information. Unless it's enumerated, it doesn't exist, for all intents and purposes. 
Logged
Earth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,548


Political Matrix
E: -9.61, S: -9.83

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 11:43:28 PM »

Due to the progress in technology, it is accepted that Radio, TV, Internet are protected even when they are not specifically mentioned on paper.

The only possible way for the legal system to set up something that covers current and future technologies from intrusion into citizen's personal lives are obviously rulings, not the constitution. It's after the fact, and many don't go far enough.

Unless it's specifically defined by the courts, it's par for the course. It's an erroneous assumption to believe anything you write or speak over the internet or phone stays between you and the directed party. I'm reminded of operation Echelon, corporate data mining, profile deletion on social networking sites (and personal materials being owned by the company), and employers firing their workers based on comments or activity off work time.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 14 queries.