Constitutional Privacy

We really need this (0.00 / 0)

Roe v. Wade is one of the most poorly reasoned decisions there is.  With each techonological advance that moves up the point of viability, the right to choose becomes less and less certain.  There have been some interesting constitutional arguments made for the right to choose based on the 13th amendment's prohibiton of involuntary servitude, but it's an attenuated argument and it would be nearly impossible to extend it to issues like the right to marry whomever you choose of whatever sex, etc...

The problem is that Congress cannot compel the Supreme Court to read a particular right into the Constitution since the S.C. is the final arbirter of the Constitution under Marbury v. Madison.  Such legislation would probably be struck down on those grounds (separation of powers).  It would have to be done by a Constitutional Amendment and such an Amendment would never pass because the far right would get everyone, including moderate independent voters, into a frenzy by saying the amendment would be used to grant people the right to marry children or something.  Heck, we couldn't even get the ERA passed b/c of the fear that it would be used a foundation for gay rights.

We can however, do this in New Jersey and we might actually get it passed.  It would probably make the national press and would provide a good counter balance to all the red states trying to amend their state constitutions to limit people's right to marry.

---

by: morrisdem @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 16:57:46 PM UTC

It's time... (0.00 / 0)

For the concept of personal privacy to be codified into law. The sad fact is that there are too many loose ends out there, regarding the right to privacy.

Penalties for the abrogation of personal privacy should be right on the thin edge of Draconian, as well.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

---

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 17:16:37 PM UTC

The founders were right! (0.00 / 0)

I must point out that you are showing a distinct blindness to economic rights and their effect on the right to privacy.  Under the excuse of punishing the rich you allow the government to monitor every credit card transaction, bank deposit and paycheck in America.  In fact, without money it is almost impossible to exercise any of our other rights.  For example, not too many abortion providers ply their trade for free.  The founding fathers had it right; the government that governs best governs least.  If you wanted to be consistent in your assertions about privacy rights, you would on moral and philosophical principle reject the phenomenal amount of financial reporting and monitoring done to law-abiding citizens. 

---

by: w.chambers @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 18:38:45 PM UTC

WTF? (4.00 / 2)

I smell a right-wing nutjob.

Under the excuse of punishing the rich you allow the government to monitor every credit card transaction, bank deposit and paycheck in America.

Uh, unless you, in particular, are using "you" in a very general fashion, then you are simply crazy.  Beyond that, you are totally wrong. 

For example, not too many abortion providers ply their trade for free.

Uh, I suppose you've never heard of public health clinics?  Most are offered at no-cost if the woman can't afford to pay.

The founding fathers had it right; the government that governs best governs least.

Yep.  That's why the Dept. of Agriculture, the FDA, the FCC, the FAA, etc. are widely considered to be evil.

If you want to highjack a thread, go elsewhere.  If you have something to say about the issue at hand, then try and make your comment a little bit clearer.

Government, at any level, has no right to run your personal life.  That is the very foundation of liberty.  Now go hug your favorite fascist.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 18:52:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Colbert had it right (0.00 / 0)

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Sat May 13, 2006 at 04:17:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Duh-huh? (4.00 / 2)

Under the excuse of punishing the rich you allow the government to monitor every credit card transaction, bank deposit and paycheck in America.

Yeah.  Because the wealthy are another oppressed group in America.  They suffer so much, so so much, for having to report financial data.  You know, if ever a group were seriously oppressed and suffering under enormous burdens that destroy their quality of life, it is the wealthy.  No wonder they must drown their sorrows in Johnny Walker Blue and compulsively buy yacht after yacht.  Why, I know one wealthy person who must spend five or six weeks at spas every year getting massaged to within an inch of his life just to deal with the oppression.  And the golf courses he has to play!

DBK

---

by: DBK @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 19:34:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Punishing the rich" -- spoken by someone who isn't (4.00 / 2)

Methinks our little troll is not one of the rich people he regards as so oppressed, but just another Fox News dittohead parroting what he's told while the Administration picks his pocket to give more tax cuts to their friends.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Fri May 12, 2006 at 19:53:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NSA Yanking Americans phone records. (0.00 / 0)

I friggen can't believe how the media is just dropping the ball on the presidents program to yank innocent America's phone records.  I have degree in Criminal Justice and you learn very early on that if  you want to pull someones phone records YOU NEED A WARRANT.  The is this thing call the 4th Amendment protecting you freedom from being left alone.  The media has locked to a poll that says that 60% America's approve of the president plan to spy on America.  First, the people do not understand how vulnerable they are when the government knows who they call and who calls them.  Second, it does not matter what the polls say.  This country is not run on poles.  Its run on law and the constitution and the president has violated his oath of office and HAS BROKEN THE LAW!  I can't friggen believe it.  President Clinton gets impeached over an issue that should have never see the light of day and President Bush who is breaking the law and STEAL YOUR RIGHTS is getting a pass from the press.  It is unbelievable and your not yelling, screaming, turning the furniture over you do not have a thought in you head or a pounding you in you heart.  If we do not impeach this president this country will die.  We will not be America.  We will not be free.

---

by: lasermike026 @ Sat May 13, 2006 at 01:31:34 AM UTC

Get a special investigator (0.00 / 0)

I would suggest we use a House Resolution to get a special investigator to review the NSA's phone call records on the entire Executive Branch, to share with the public where phone calls have happened between them and the MEK group and then the public might begin to get the idea of how vulnerable everyone is to the NSA eavesdropping.

Turn the spotlight back where it needs to shine, on the government itself.  It is high time to use the NSA records to check the government.  After all, so-called 'Checks and Balances' was never meant to be used on the citizens, as it's the government that the founders told us we are supposed be monitoring after all.

While private citizens in a democracy should have every right to privacy, the activities of those who act in the name of public service should have all of their work exposed (but not their private non-work lives).

The US Govt appears to have been hiring / sending money to MEK, a terrorist group, with our public money, for the past year.

I don't like it.  I wonder if some congressman can explain this to us.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html

MSNBC says NCRI (a "dissident group") is the front for MEK.  Bolton is happy to send them our money in any case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/site/newsweek/

I bet the phone records would be very interesting indeed.

Thoughts just occurred to me: 

1.US quietly sold arms to Hussein in the 1980s to fight Iran.  That backfired gloriously.
2.US quietly sold arms to Bin Laden in the 1980s-90s to fight Russians in Afghanistan.  That worked like shlt too, as he bombed us in 2001.
3. So now some members in government secretly do business with MEK operatives???  Wasn't it illegal to do business with terrorists?  To see who has done business with terrorists is the correct and legitimate use for wiretapping.

You tell me, what's the trend. Mathematically speaking, please connect the dots and project a line for me.

We have forking widiots at the helm.  Gold save us.

---

by: mrcoder @ Sun May 14, 2006 at 20:49:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

Democracy begins with the protection of citizen privacy and sovereignty, and may well end without such protection.

My question is, what types of creative means exist to apply the kind of leverage necessary to get a codified right to privacy to take root?

Writing another simple letter which would ultimately go unanswered by my US Representative would probably be just another exercise in futility.

Perhaps getting published in a letter to the editor of a newspaper would help plant a seed in more people.

Any other ideas?

Or is democracy itself really not going to motivate anyone any more?

---

by: mrcoder @ Sun May 14, 2006 at 20:30:33 PM UTC

Re: (0.00 / 0)

I think democracy does work, but it doesn't work quickly or without effort.

Write letters to your representatives - all of them.  Send letters to the editor of the paper.  Offer to write an op-ed.  Talk to your friends and family.  Get them to do the same.

Don't stop fighting.

XT

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Mon May 15, 2006 at 00:57:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]