# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Is there a right to privacy?

## r33d33

I just came across this...




> "I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision." - Justice Black dissenting, Griswold v. CT, 1965

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> I just came across this...


Justice Hugo Black is also the guy who perverted the whole "separation of Church and State" bull$#@!.

so now instead of government being prevented from interfering with say a prayer before a high school football game.. now the goverment prevents the prayer before a high school football game.

----------


## r33d33

ok, I was just wondering if a right to privacy is constitutional and how it is

----------


## JoshLowry

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html




> Consider the _Lawrence_ case decided by the Supreme Court                  in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish                  its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy                  is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”                  *Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to                  privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.*  There are,                  however, _states’ rights_ – rights plainly affirmed                  in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the                  State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate                  social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather                  than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction                  over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary                  Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
> 
> Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas,                  environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal                  jurists are way out of touch with the American people.


I still am not sure how I feel about the states regulating consensual sex. 

If we did have 50 sovereign states then they probably would not pass ridiculous laws. They would be much more in touch with the people.

----------


## DamianTV

> ok, I was just wondering if a right to privacy is constitutional and how it is


The Right to Privacy is not specifically listed in the bill of rights, although IMHO, it should be.  Its considered by the Supreme Court as a Penumbra right (edge of a shadow) of the 4th Amendment.




> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The cases considered that what a person does, thinks, and feels IS encompassed by the words "persons" and "effects".

---

What we are seeing occur today is as a result of what usually happens.  

As so long as removing a persons rights provides a benefit to those that would be able to abuse people without said rights, those rights will continue to be eroded away until they are no longer exisitent.  - ME

Thus:  If it is profitable for companies to get rid of your right to privacy by monitoring and phoning home everything that you watch on your TV, companies will continue to build cable boxes, satellite receivers, and multimedia box sets that "require" a phone line or internet access to "update" their stuff.  Truthfully, updating means that you can have a passive unit that only listens.  THe real updating happens on THEIR end where they update their profile on what shows you watch, what time you watch the shows, and what commercials you watch.

They try to abuse legal loopholes that say when you browse on the web, and say you get a cookie, they are not collecting any personally identifiable information.  They are only putting a "unique" identifier on your computer that does not uniquely identify you.  That in and of itself is a complete self contradiction.  They phrase it a little differently but look at it this way, your name is pretty much a unique identifier.  So is your drivers license number, or social security number.  It can be cross referenced somewhere to discover what this individuals name is, address is, and basically every recorded bit of data that has been recorded.  Thus, putting a "unique" identifying cookie on your computer doesnt protect your privacy in any way shape or form because as long as they can cross reference this information to somewhere else, they can uniquely identify you, with a name, address, sex, weight, height, credit score and down to the average number of pieces of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass when you take a $#@!.  Yeah that sounds a little paranoid doesnt it?  Well, if I were to take a cookie ID from some website that you just browsed to, cross reference that to the IP that it was given to, then reference on the IP to your name thru your ISP, I could continue to reference with your name, and address your water bill and with your savers card you use at your local grocery store how much toilet paper you buy, and by comparing how much toilet paper you purchase with how much water you use, I can roughly estimate how much toilet paper you use to wipe your ass.

Oh that sounds so paranoid.  Besides, I dont do anything wrong, I dont have any reason to fear if they are watching me.  If youre not paranoid, youre not paying attention.  Alternatively, why do they think they need to watch you if you arent doing anything wrong?  Nether reply to the original statement provides a worthwhile argument.  Look at it this way, if you allow them to watch you, they WILL find a reason to arrest you.  The legal system, although slow and ineffective, is definitely changing.  Daily.  There was once a time when drugs were legal.  Soon after and skip a couple decades, it became unlawful to post any advertisements on the side of roads without a license.  The laws that are thought up and put into effect every single day strangle the freedoms granted to you by the fighting and dying forefathers of this country until you wont be able to breathe without paying a tax on it.  Thats the price of losing your privacy.  Its not breaking the law that is the problem, its the laws itself that are the problem.  We will eventually conclude that healthy people should not have to pay as much for health insurance as fat $#@!ers that dont watch what they eat, so if you buy too much bacon, ice cream, or butter, you will be a new class of criminal, and thus fined, or worse, imprisoned.  How much butter you put on your english muffin is none of my business.  However the powers that be have decided long ago that they dont want to spend money on fat people so they are trying to get rid of those pesky privacy laws to the point that you will not be able to do literally anything without prior approval and careful monitoring.

This wasnt the entire point of my rant.  The point was ALL rights are severely endangered, not just privacy.  Thats just a drop in the bucket.  I challenge you to randomly pick some right you think you have, then think of a way that someone else can benefit from you losing your right.

Right to Bear Arms:  If people didnt have guns, they would not be able to stand up to our tyranny.  WHen we raise taxes or do something that would normally start a revolutionary war, the serfs will be much less inclined to do so without the ability to fire a weapon.

Solution to the Right to Bear Arms:  Lets find a way to make it profitable.  Require licenses.  Impose heavy taxes on the sales of firearms and ammuntition.  We can justify these by demonizing guns being used to kill innocent people.  Then we can fine and imprison.

Right to Use Drugs:  Another good example of a right that was not specifically mentioned.  This one comes into play because when the constitution and bill of rights were originally written, drugs were not illegal.  All that occured was tobacco and alcohol were taxed.  Thats it.  Drugs were not illegal.  However, when drugs became illegal, ah hell, lets forget about the illegal drugs, lets just go with alcohol since we do have history with it.  When alcohol was made illegal (prohibition) it didnt simply get rid of alcohol.  It still existed.  It also created RISK if you were willing to disregard the law and possess, sell, or distribute alcohol.  Due to this risk, those willing to sell the alcohol had to also factor in the RISK of being caught breaking the law into the PRICE of the product made illegal by said law.  This created a black market.  THe prices for alcohol were very high, which gave the criminals power.  The power they had was to sell their products at artificially high prices, and gain more money for less work, thus more and more power.

Solution to the Right to Use Drugs:  Make drugs illegal and heavily fine anyone in possession of the drugs.  Raise taxes and create more government jobs (any expansion of government to enforce new laws is the ultimate form of Big Brother) to enforce drug laws.  Create more risk.  Increase the price of the drugs.  Confiscate money taken from drug (alcohol) dealers and use them to fund your political campaign.

The Right to Drugs comes from this:




> The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.


Pick anything else random off the top of your head, or just make $#@! up.  Lets outlaw SOCKS.  Like shoes and socks, were gonna outlaw socks because they smell.  Why not, its the same excuse as most people have about smoking.  And if we REALLY want to get into a symantical argument over smoking is unhealthy but stinky socks are not, lets point out the fact that socks stink due to moisture allowing a breeding ground for bacteria to grow.  Bacteria.  There we go.  Unhealthy.  And I'll use that as my foundation for this hypothetical argument to make socks illegal.

Making socks illegal will not get rid of socks.  Doing so will create a black market for those that choose to disobey the law for the enjoyment of the comfort that wearing socks provides.  As people probably wont just immediately give up their socks unless confronted, most people will figure that since people dont spend a great deal of time staring at peoples feet, they probably wont be noticed if they are wearing socks in public because they can be easily hidden by wearing pants long enough to cover and hide their socks.  So people will still use socks even though they are illegal.  In their minds, the benefits of wearing socks, such as not getting blisters from wearing shoes without socks is enough of a benefit to risk going against the propoganda that socks are bacterial breeding grounds and thus unhealthy.

Again, the same thing applies.  Risk.  Now, because there is an associated risk, the price of socks will skyrocket.  And sock makers will profit from the risk.  So will politicians.  Politicians will make money by seizing the assets of illegal sock sellers, as well as fining individuals heavily for the use of socks.

Its a win-win situation in every single case.  Its the Gambino's vs the Salieri's, and we are caught in the cross fire.  Government makes money by imposing ridicululs fines, and the criminals (read: normal would be people that because of new laws making something or some act illegal creates the criminals) get profit because of the associated risk with the products or services they provide.  When anything is made illegal, they both benefit from the laws, but we get caught in the middle and are bled dry until we have nothing more we can provide to them.  THey are both parasites and will suck the life out of their hosts until they kill them.  Then they move on to a new host.

So many people think that our elected officials have our best interests in mind.  They dont.  They look out for themselves, and we have let them get away with it with their smooth talking sales pitches and ideas that making things illegal will make the world a better place.

How about banks?  Theres a big one.  Nice and easy too.  Banking is nearly the ultimate form of abuse and what I refer to as the ultimate form of financial slavery.  Banks have more power today than they've ever had.  They have enough power that they start wars between two countries they are vested in and enslave both.  History continues to tell us that we won WWII.  Lets look at that definition for a second.  Winner.  Winner can pretty much be described as the party that comes out on top and better than everyone else in a conflict.  WWII I think is a very good example because it wasnt just one nation vs another nation, it was multiple nations vs multiple other nations.  Multiple entities.  But the important one that we forgot was THE BANK.  National Banks (Read private loaning firms owned and operated by individuals without regulation) are the real winners of ANY modern war.  We consider that we came out on top in WWII, despite the loss of life because of the lack of collateral damage.  Excluding Pearl Harbor, there were NO battles fought on the continental Untied States (er Freudian slip there?  UnTied not United, I almost think UnTied is more appropriate for our current condition)  Due to the fact that we did not have to rebuild multiple cities from bombings and invasion, we say we came out on top.  The real winner was the Federal Reserve, our National Bank from which all of our currency is derived from and interest paid on.  We increased our debt by spending more money during a time of war, and continue to pay interest today to the Federal Reserve for the money that was conjured up to fight that war.  They won, and we were just that much more enslaved to the bank.

The National and International Banks are the real winners of ANY modern war.  I did say that earlier but the statement is so profound that it needs to be repeated.  Side track for a bit.  This is a memory technique used for remembering anything.  The human brain retains small organized bits of information by repeating the pattern of the information at least 5 times.  If you meet a girl (or a boy) at a bar and dont want to forget their name, when youre talking to them, use their name in at least five sentences while talkiing to them.  Hey Sue, what kind of a drink would you like?  Bla bla bla.  Hey Sue, how is your drink?  Are you hungry, Sue?  How was your dinner, Sue?  Sue, can I have your phone number so I can call you later?  Now, apply that methodology to the statement of The National and International Banks are the real winners of ANY modern war.  Now say it to yourself at least two more times.

Banks have manipulated our laws and our way of being to the point that they control everything.  Period.  Anything you do is profitable to them.  Again the problem isnt the banks, its what we allow them to get away with because of the power we give them with the laws we allow to be passed.  If we didnt allow for the existence of a fiat money system, we wouldnt be in another great depression.  If we didnt allow for a fractional reserve loan system, we wouldnt have more debt than money in all of existence.  

The answer to all of these problems lies NOT in more laws and restrictions of our freedoms, but in removing as many laws as is humanly possible and enforce laws that restrict government and its abilities to pass and enforce laws that create the systemic problems inherit to our way of life.

Whats the ultimate solution to the sock epidemic that is sweeping the United States?  Answer:  Get rid of the law.  Make it not profitable for sock dealers to deal socks.  At first, because of the associated price, a lot of competition will pop up for people trying to make a buck by selling socks legally at illegal prices.  That wont last too long as the competition in the market will drive the price of socks down so low that it forces the sock dealers to find a new line of work.  It will eventually go so low that the only profitable way to make money by manufacturing and selling socks is to export the business overseas where some 13 year old that works 18 hours a day and earns ten cents in a child slave labor camp is the only way that selling socks can be profitable.

Get rid of Drug Laws:  Reread the above paragraph and just replace socks with drugs.

Gun Laws:  Reread the above paragraph and just replace socks with guns.  Im sure you see where Im going with this.

Wouldnt getting rid of the laws make us so unsafe that we would end up killing ourselves?  Life got along just fine for 4 billion years without any laws except the laws of nature.  Kill or be killed.  Gravity.  THe strongest survive.  $#@! like that.  The idea that we cant survive without government provided assistance is an idea that politicians and criminals alike need you to believe in order to maintain their line of work and their extravagant lifestyles.  We dont need the nanny state laws.

But what about murder?  If we legalized guns, wouldnt gun rates go thru the roof?  Well, if the first thing everyone did was to run out and buy a gun, would be criminals that abuse the power that having a gun gives them tried to use the power, they would find that the power they would have had by them having a gun and their intended victims not having a gun would be quickly shifted to both parties having and equal chance and opportunity to kill the other and the risk of losing ones life becomes too great to take a chance.  In other words, criminals would be more afraid of getting shot to the point that many (not all) would not even try to rob anyone again.  We dont need cops to enforce laws against robbery.  The criminals simply need to figure out that if they try to rob someone at gunpoint, there is a really really good chance they will get shot for trying.

What about drunk driving?  Drunk Driving is one of those situations where it does seem to be in peoples best interest, but the laws are being abused.  The problem here is responsibility.  Those that are willing to drive drunk dont take responsibility for the problems they cause.  This will take a very long time to fix, and its not just related to drunk driving, you could extend this idea to any form of unintended bodily harm.  Malpractice or simply screwing up someones accounting while running their business.  Drunk drivers dont run around looking for someone to kill.  What they also dont do is take responsiblity for their actions because someone else always pays.  Insurance, the victims, etc.  Promoting responsiblity is a far better option than simply disposing of drunk drivers entirely from society.  THis needs a LOT of debate, but keep in mind that it is profitable for the government to over criminalize drunk drivers.  ...and cops NEVER lie.

Thats one hell of a tanget, what the hell does any of this have to do with my privacy?  Its all the same, simple point.  As long as it is profitable for ANYONE to abuse your rights, your rights will be abused, and you best need to stand up to these people.  Even if its your neighbor complaining about how trashy your yard is.  THey might just try to be profiting by forcing you to landscape your yard from a simple, mowed grass lawn, to a decorated state to raise their property value and sell their home at a higher price.  Its still a form of abuse.

What about the banks, what the hell does that have to do with privacy?  Who knows more about where you spend your money?  And what does every company, criminal, and elected offical want?  More money.  But its just information, what can be done with that information?  Let your mind run wild.  The really sad conclusion that you should end up with is that the most off the wall and insane idea of how this information could be used probably is no where close to the limit of what is not only been thought up but probably already implemented.  Banks are that malicious, and that destructive to the progression of humanity.  The power to create, coin, and regulate the value thereof is the most important power that any government can have, and that power should be protected at all costs.  We failed ourselves of this responsibility about a hundred years ago when we allowed the Federal Reserve to be chartered and become the controlling entity in our form of government.  Everything else is consequencial.  Everything.  Who cares if drugs are illegal, if they know where you spend your money and what you spend your money on, legal or illegal, like drugs or alcohol, it wont be long before the legal becomes the illegal, and you can kiss any other rights you have goodbye.  

Actually, I kind of like that statement:  Without your right to privacy, the legal will become the illegal, eventually.

Banks have created the problems, and the biggest threat to your freedom is your privacy.  How can you plan to stage a protest without the right to privacy?  How can you organize a march in front of the White House to protest the Banks without your right to privacy?  You cant.  What if I didnt talk about it and just went and bought a gun and do it myself?  If the money is being tracked because you gave away your privacy, you'll never be able to defend your rights.

Back to square one, the original question, dont I have a right to privacy?  As so long as it remains in the interests of those that would abuse you without your rights, you will continue to lose more of your rights until you have none at all.

----------


## foofighter20x

Ninth Amendment.

I don't think anymore needs to be said.

----------


## furface

It's complex and rather strained if you ask me.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/




> The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. 
> 
> This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

----------


## axiomata

> It's complex and rather strained if you ask me.
> 
> http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.
> 
> This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.


I cannot take the first paragraph seriously after reading the fallacy of the second.  Abortion is not about privacy, it is about whether an unborn fetus is a legal person.  If it is not a person, then the mother should be allowed to do with it what she wishes in the privacy of her home or doctor's office.  If it is a person then its right to life shall not be permitted to be infringed.  Legal scholars would argue that is fair to expect privacy in your own bedroom, in the same manner as it should be expected in your own body.  But no one will argue that you should be allowed to kill another person in the privacy of your own bedroom.

----------


## furface

It's all a giant clusterf...  The 9 & 10th Amendments make the concept of limited federal jurisdiction in these matters absolutely clear.  Since it's not clearly a federal power to decide if a fetus is human or not, it's a State right to decide.  Since the right to privacy is not clearly enumerated in the Constitution, States clearly have the right to decide on this issue.

IMO opinion even the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to states in a strict legal sense.  It says "Congress shall pass no law."  Nothing to do with states.  Maybe it should in a theoretical sense, but not in a Constitutional sense.  If there was an omission, amend the Constitution, don't let the courts do it for you.

That's the big problem with our courts.  They decide in terms of what they think should be the answer and then concoct a bizarre explanation of it by twisting the words of the Constitution.  Congress lets them get away with it.  Why shouldn't they, though?  It's all about increased federal power and everybody in D.C. gains by increasing federal power.  It's a defacto federal coup de tat if you ask me.

----------


## Joe3113

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
> 
> I still am not sure how I feel about the states regulating consensual sex. 
> 
> If we did have 50 sovereign states then they probably would not pass ridiculous laws. They would be much more in touch with the people.


Even if they did. Why on earth should it be criminal for two people to have consensual sex?

Who is the victim?

----------


## furface

> Who is the victim?


What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level.  However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound.  There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on victimless crimes, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise.  There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.

I take the position that States should have the right to pass laws like this.  If you want to have a Southern Baptist government in Mississippi, by all means do it.  Just move out of Mississippi if you don't like it.  

State rights are so very important because the alternative to them is massively oppressive federal government like we have.  My view is that if states were given more leeway to do the things that people wanted to do, people would tend to congregate in the States they felt comfortable in, and state governments would become much more consensual in turn.

----------


## Joe3113

> What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level.


It is logical, yes. Pity common sense, isn't so common.




> However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound.


That's because the Constitution is a flawed document. 

At least you have acknowledge common sense > consitution. Or are you suggesting it is the other way around? Haha. 




> There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on victimless crimes, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise.


And the Supreme Court judges selected by the President, argue in favour on the political elite and an expansion of state power. Always have, always will. Why did you think they got the job? 

Judges can interpret the law, anyway they want. And no, don't try refute this - in that they apply 'principles' and 'methods', please get your hand of it and wake up and smell the roses. 




> There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.


Back in the day, ala the US Constitution - it was a crime to be black...




> I take the position that States should have the right to pass laws like this.


I don't. So what happens to me? By what right do they govern? Why are they allowed to initiate violence against me? I have done nothing to no-one.




> If you want to have a Southern Baptist government in Mississippi, by all means do it.  Just move out of Mississippi if you don't like it.


*Take it or leave fallacy.* 

Why, in effect, tell the victim of assault-by-taxation "if you don't like it you can leave"? That position simply affirms that opposition to the violence of taxation will beget more violence. *Why not say the things to victims of physical and sexual assault?*




> State rights are so very important because the alternative to them is massively oppressive federal government like we have.


The states had more rights under the articles of confederation. Do you support than over the U.S Constitution? Bear in mind, there were massive amounts of people who were against it. Anti Federalists.




> My view is that if states were given more leeway to do the things that people wanted to do, people would tend to congregate in the States they felt comfortable in, and state governments would become much more consensual in turn.


They can. They can secede. Oh wait! They tried that... and it resulted in a Civil War. Lincoln "saved" the Union... with the blood of 600,000 peoples lives. Was it worth 1 life? No. Well.. maybe Lincolns.

----------


## furface

I agree the Constitution is a flawed document.  I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.   

However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit.  The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan.  In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government  for the states anyway.  

People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want.  What business is it of yours if they do?  Again, if they don't like it they can leave.  The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does.  It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.

----------


## Joe3113

> I agree the Constitution is a flawed document.  I'm not one to view it as some sort of supernatural incarnation like the Bible or the Quran.   
> 
> However, I don't agree that local communities shouldn't have the right to create laws and interpret things in a way they see fit.  The "we need to protect people from themselves" concept is a common argument used for invading places like Iraq & Afghanistan.  In America the Constitution requires republican forms of government  for the states anyway.  
> 
> People should have the right to vote in fascism if they want.  What business is it of yours if they do?  Again, if they don't like it they can leave.  The Constitution also guarantees that, at least at this point it does.  It didn't before the 14th Amendment, or at least the Supreme Court claimed it didn't with Dred Scot, at least partially.


You avoided answering my questions, and arguments. You continued to use the exact same fallacies. These are invalid arguments. This is unfortunate.

----------


## furface

Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is.  Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy.  I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.

----------


## Joe3113

> Maybe you can state your questions in a clearer manner and state exactly what your evidence for something being fallacious is.  Merely claiming something is a fallacy does not make it a fallacy.  I have almost zero patience for purely rhetorical arguments, so I might not even respond to you, but if you can present me with some true objectively logical constructions I will gladly engage with you.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=12

What is not clear? Please highlight the responses you do not understand. 

Maybe you should originally asked for more clarification / elaboration, instead of ignoring it and continuing to commit the same errors.

----------


## DamianTV

I hope this will distract you two from arguing with each other and look at the big picture of what is going on...

---

In response to "Who is the victim", I want to take a step back to that statement and try to clarify it with definition.

I think the easiest way to put it is like this:

Unlawful = There IS a victim.  Someone got hurt.  Murder.
Illegal = There IS NO victim.  Nobody got hurt.  Speeding Ticket.

Also have to keep in mind that, although our system of government when origianally designed, was not perfect, it was designed to be balanced.  Balance being more important than perfect.  

Congress WRITES the LAWS.
Presidential or Executive Branch ENFORCES the LAWS.
Courts INTERPRET the LAWS.

Thus, the problem isnt with the design of the government, but the application.  Every law, every single law is subject to interpretation in the court system.  If the Courts stood up and said that enforcing such and such a law was Unconstitutional, then the law is invalidated, and balance is maintained.  But when the Courts take any crime or dispute and apply a judgement that is almost always in favor of "the government can do what ever the hell it wants and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it" type of attitude, then again the problem isnt the system itself, it is unbalanced because of the way it is applied, and getting crooked judges and lawyers and other selve serving interests in ANY seat is equally dangerous.

How many laws did Bush write while he was in office?  Wire Tapping?  Came from his office.  How many times has the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government abuse over the rights of the ordinary man, who didnt have money to pay for bigtime lawyers?  How many times has a court case come down to which lawyer is the better salesman?  How many times have we gone to war without authorization from Congress?  

The Federal Government as it was intended by those that set up our form of government to begin with knew this and tried to make the system balanced, but couldnt do a whole hell of a lot to keep corrupt people from getting into positions of power and applying their corruption.  If only one branch of the government was corrupt, we would probably be ok because the other two would keep the out of balance branch in check.  But all three are $#@!ed.  We all know this.  The Constitution, unfortuantely, even as Bush said, its just a bunch of words on paper.  Words themselves have no meaning without someone to enforce the meaning of those words.

The Right to Privacy died with the Constitution.

----------


## Bradley in DC

Yes, there is a right to privacy.

In tort law privacy relates to 1) intrusion on a person's solitude; 2) public disclosure of private facts about a person; 3) publicity that places a person in a false light; and 4) taking a person's name or likeness for the advantage of someone else (as in an advertisement).

See also POSNER, THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY 12 Ga. L. Rev. 393 (1978)

----------


## Joe3113

> In response to "Who is the victim", I want to take a step back to that statement and try to clarify it with definition.
> 
> I think the easiest way to put it is like this:
> 
> Unlawful = There IS a victim.  Someone got hurt.  Murder.
> Illegal = There IS NO victim.  Nobody got hurt.  Speeding Ticket.


That isn't a definition, but ok.. I'll run with it.

"Unlawful" - what type of law is being broken? And by that I mean, natural law, or legal positivism? 

It would be the former, and the said action is a violation of the non aggression axiom.

"Illegal" - There IS a victim. It is the person who got the speeding ticket. There is the threat of violence imposed against them by the State. They did not harm anyone, they did not violate the NAP. If you do not pay the tickets, look out. Jail. And if you resist = death. 




> Thus, the problem isnt with the design of the government, but the application.


No, it's with the nature of government. It is a parasitic entity. It does not produce, it only consumes, it is a criminal gang writ large.

----------


## bobbyw24

In Florida, we have the Constitutional Right to Privacy

*SECTION 23.  Right of privacy.*--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. 

History.--Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

----------


## bobbyw24

he Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

----------


## osan

> I still am not sure how I feel about the states regulating consensual sex.


Well, you should be.  Seriously.  As far as I am concerned, government has no legitimate power to regulate any consensual behavior, including two idiots sitting in the basement playing Russian Roulette.  If two men want to give each other hemorrhoids, that is completely up to them.  The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on this, IMO.




> If we did have 50 sovereign states then they probably would not pass ridiculous laws. They would be much more in touch with the people.


Like anything else, state sovereignty can be a two-edged sword.  My general interpretation of the Constitution's role is to delimit the *maximally expansive* envelope of government power and the *maximally restrictive* metes and bounds of individual rights and the prerogatives those rights engender.  IOW, enumerate the *entire* set of legitimate powers that any government entity may exercise and which can go no farther.  Similarly, to enumerate the entire set of restrictions on human prerogative, which should result in a vanishingly small set of very specific prohibitions (such as murder, rape, robbery). 

  The prerogatives of so-called "states rights" (an oxymoron in fact, since states have no material reality, are not living sentient beings, and therefore have no "rights") are to further restrict government power.  That's it and *nothing* more.  I believe that human rights must be centrally defined and enumerated such that those rights are guaranteed within every state that chooses to be part of this union.  If a state doesn't like it, they may demur joining or remove themselves, but once agreed, they must toe the line of complete liberty.  There is no good reason why anyone should have to worry about their legitimate behavior in one state becoming felonious by physically crossing an imaginary boundary.  The notion is absurd on its face.  For example, if I can freely carry a firearm in my home state, I should not have to disarm when I go to California.  Human rights are the same no matter where one goes.  The only thing that changes is whether government in a given locale respects those rights or violates them.  There are no other legitimate considerations.

----------


## osan

> I just came across this...


Seems to me the 9th and 10th Amendments make the right to privacy abundantly clear.  Part of the definition of a _right_ is freedom from interference.  The unwanted prying into one's personal business or that of a group is clearly interference.

----------


## Matt Collins

Remember a few key points and you'll be able to figure it all out:

- Only individuals have rights, not groups, communities, or governments.
- Governments don't have rights, they have power
- Rights originate with individuals because of their humanity, they are not granted to us by anyone or any group or government. Our rights are not contingent upon the will of the community or a majority vote. 
- Government doesn't grant rights because it doesn't have any to grant. Government only grants privileges. Rights and privileges are opposites because a privilege can be revoked at anytime.


So taken all of the above, we have an inherent right to privacy. The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it's known as a "negative authority". It tells the government what it can't do for the most part (and also mentions a few things that are allowed). But our rights do not originate under the Constitution; our rights exist because we exist. We have every right imaginable with the only limitation being that we are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of others. Government sometimes infringes upon our individual rights. 

So of course there is an inherent right to privacy even though it isn't written down anywhere. It doesn't have to be written down because it's understood (or used to be at least) that the natural law recognizes our individual rights which are infinite.

----------


## Matt Collins

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
> 
> I still am not sure how I feel about the states regulating consensual sex. 
> 
> If we did have 50 sovereign states then they probably would not pass ridiculous laws. They would be much more in touch with the people.


This is where Constitutionalism and libertarianism diverge. It is Constitutional for the States to do this sort of thing, because they did not cede this power to the federal government by way of the Constitution. 

However the natural law and the right of the individual make this clearly unacceptable for the State, *any* government, to attempt to infringe upon our individual rights in such a manner.

----------


## Danke

> What you're getting at is reasonable in a common sense level.  However, constitutionally it's not entirely sound.  There are arguments that the 5th Amendment's "due process" clause contains a ban on *victimless crimes*, but a strict constructionist would probably argue otherwise.  There is no explicit ban on victimless crimes in the Constitution.


What about the Sixth Amendment?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

No injury, how can someone accuse you of a crime against them?

----------


## Mini-Me

> Well, you should be.  Seriously.  As far as I am concerned, government has no legitimate power to regulate any consensual behavior, including two idiots sitting in the basement playing Russian Roulette.  If two men want to give each other hemorrhoids, that is completely up to them.  The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on this, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Like anything else, state sovereignty can be a two-edged sword.  My general interpretation of the Constitution's role is to delimit the *maximally expansive* envelope of government power and the *maximally restrictive* metes and bounds of individual rights and the prerogatives those rights engender.  IOW, enumerate the *entire* set of legitimate powers that any government entity may exercise and which can go no farther.  Similarly, to enumerate the entire set of restrictions on human prerogative, which should result in a vanishingly small set of very specific prohibitions (such as murder, rape, robbery). 
> 
>   The prerogatives of so-called "states rights" (an oxymoron in fact, since states have no material reality, are not living sentient beings, and therefore have no "rights") are to further restrict government power.  That's it and *nothing* more.  I believe that human rights must be centrally defined and enumerated such that those rights are guaranteed within every state that chooses to be part of this union.  If a state doesn't like it, they may demur joining or remove themselves, but once agreed, they must toe the line of complete liberty.  There is no good reason why anyone should have to worry about their legitimate behavior in one state becoming felonious by physically crossing an imaginary boundary.  The notion is absurd on its face.  For example, if I can freely carry a firearm in my home state, I should not have to disarm when I go to California.  Human rights are the same no matter where one goes.  The only thing that changes is whether government in a given locale respects those rights or violates them.  There are no other legitimate considerations.


Ultimately, I consider it the responsibility of a state's population - rather than the federal government - to ensure that state is protecting (and not violating) human rights.  The problem with the top-down centralized approach is this:  Not everyone agrees on the definition of human rights...and moreover, only a minority of people have the correct understanding.*

What happens when a "right" is declared which interferes with natural rights, such as a supposed right to healthcare on the backs of taxpayers?  In that case, the federal government will persecute any states who violate that "right."  Centralized power, no matter what the stated aim, is always a double-edged sword.  This is why I think you misunderstand Josh's post:  He WANTS liberty in all states, but recognizes that the more power he gives to the federal government to ensure liberty everywhere, the more power he is also giving to the federal government to destroy any chance of liberty anywhere.

I do understand the general idea that, as a precondition to entering a newly formed union, only states recognizing and protecting some mandatory minimum of human rights should be admitted.  However, where do you want to set that mandatory minimum?  How exhaustive of a list of rights should it be?  Technically, if it were a *truly exhaustive list* based on natural law, it would preclude any policy deviation between member states at all...and it would in fact preclude the very existence of any state whatsoever.

There is no function of the state which does not technically infringe upon human rights.  Even a minarchist state which exists solely to protect people's rights from violation (and nothing else) still relies on tax money/tariffs and demands a monopoly on the legal use of force, and it therefore violates property rights to some [hopefully minor] degree in the course of protecting those same rights.  (If it does neither, then it is technically not a state but a company or non-profit organization instead.)  Therefore, if you wish for federalism (or a confederacy) over a stateless society, where do you want to draw the line regarding the mandatory minimum of rights that a state must protect as a prerequisite of joining the union?  This is a bit of a catch 22.  The more rights you add to the list, the more policy that is being dictated from on high by the federal (or confederate) government.  This means that the more rights you add to the list, the more likely it is that a socialist will demand a non-right be part of it, thereby destroying the ability of ANY member state to have a free market.  In my opinion, if we must have a federal or confederate union, and we wish member states to be in any way sovereign, we should tread carefully when it comes to prerequisites for admittance.

*Moral relativists and nihilists will dispute the claim that rights even exist at all, so they'll certainly dispute the notion that there's any such thing as a "correct" understanding.  That's all well and good, but if we assume for a moment that rights DO exist and are supposed to make sense, I'd argue that libertarian rights based on natural law (i.e. life, liberty, and property, stemming from self-ownership) are the only logical candidates for the "correct" set of rights.  The "rights" socialists claim, based on positive liberty (at the expense of negative liberty), are irrationally arbitrary, have no consistent or objective fundamental basis, and crap all over Occam's Razor.

----------


## Scofield

The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to get into your personal business.  The Federal Government has few and limited enumerated powers, and a power to launch itself into your personal life is not one of them.  

You will have to read your individual state constitution to determine what your state has to say about the issue.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

nt

----------


## WaltM

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html
> 
> I still am not sure how I feel about the states regulating consensual sex. 
> 
> If we did have 50 sovereign states then they probably would not pass ridiculous laws. They would be much more in touch with the people.


Why is it ridiculous if there's no right to sodomy or privacy?

----------


## The Patriot

> Why is it ridiculous if there's no right to sodomy or privacy?


Well, there is not a specific right in the Constitution. However, the right of people to be secure in their persons and houses is in the fourth amendment. This sufficiently protects sexual acts in the home. A right to privacy can be enacted at the state level through the 9th amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So if California wants to have a right to privacy which would protect say abortion that would be Constitutional.

----------


## DamianTV

> Why is it ridiculous if there's no right to sodomy or privacy?


Believe it or not, those were included as rights.  What needed to happen was for those unmentioned rights to be made into unlawful activities.  Its like saying you dont have the right to have a nose on the front of your face.  Well of course you do.  It would be ridiculus for the bill of rights to have to contain every detail of ones life.  Thus it encompassed ALL activities as rights, and excluded certain activites that became unlawful.  The laws tried to free the man and control the goverment, but the world has now changed that people think that the constitution should only say what a person is specifically allowed to do.  So instead of controlling the government, constitutions (more state constitutions than federal government) now are reinterpreted to disparage the people.

Watch about 4:10 in...

YouTube - Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class 30/42

Yeah, it does sound ridiculus, but before sodomy (now technically privacy too) was outlawed, it was a right.  As were a lot of other things that most of us would just consider ridiculus.  The right to mow your yard.  The right to wipe your ass with soft or coarse toilet paper.  The right to make $#@! up and tell your friends a funny story.  The right to raid your refrigerator after midnight.  The right to turn into a gremlin.  The right to play your music as loud as you want to.  The right to not have to listen to Howard Stern.  The right to not have to think what you are told to think.  Dumb crap thats not listed in the constitution doesnt mean that it isnt a right.

----------

