06-29-2003, 11:44 AM | #61 | |
Fzoul Chembryl
Join Date: August 30, 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx.
Age: 21
Posts: 1,765
|
Quote:
|
|
06-29-2003, 06:37 PM | #62 | |
Elminster
Join Date: January 16, 2003
Location: Michigan
Age: 58
Posts: 419
|
Quote:
[ 06-29-2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: IronDragon ]
__________________
Ever notice that "What The Hell!" is always the right decision?- Marilyn Monroe |
|
06-29-2003, 06:44 PM | #63 | |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Quote:
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
|
06-29-2003, 07:02 PM | #64 | |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Quote:
I would rather have the assurance of a diverse workplace/school/military posting than leave the door open for a few racists to do their dirty work. Also since schools/companies usually only take the best qualified people to fill positions, even with affirmative action, the incentive for excellence is just as relevant to minority applicants as to white. Lastly, perhaps some poor people relize that some "dems" actually will work to improve their lives, unlike the "repubs" who do things like leave out tax credits for poor people in their tax bill. If I were "poor" I would vote for the guy giving me the best opportunity to change that, not the guy who is going to give the best opportunities to his rich cronies. For the record I'm independant, so I'm not trying to defend the dems here, only making an observation. [ 06-29-2003, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
|
06-29-2003, 07:37 PM | #65 | |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Do homophobes run the Republican party? Some of them definitely think their values and culture are better than everyone elses. To imagine they equate this kind of bigotry with moral and cultural high ground.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...marriage_x.htm Quote:
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
|
06-30-2003, 09:44 AM | #66 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Attalus, isn't PRIVACY a Constitutional issue? Whatever majority moral you're enforcing, is the citizens' bedroom a place to do it? The Right to Privacy is one of our most fundamental rights, is it not? Erm... I note no one has posted where in the Constitution this right is found. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] |
|
06-30-2003, 09:52 AM | #67 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Eisenschwarz, I will defend "dont ask dont tell" till the military decides to end it, if ever. Equal protection and/or privacy concerns can be trumped by military rules. Military indoctrination, as they see fit, is necessary to the military system. There are other reasons, but that's the nutshell.
IronDragon and Chewbacca, this case was decided on PRIVACY and explicitly NOT equal protection. I support that reading, since it would take a Constitutional Amendment to make the "equal protection" clause include a group which it currently does not. Should we the people enact such an amendment, I would cheer. But, the law is currently clear. This ruling will NOT support any claim based on equal protection, including a right to gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act will stand. |
06-30-2003, 11:50 AM | #68 |
Lord Ao
Join Date: June 24, 2002
Location: Nevernever Land
Age: 49
Posts: 2,002
|
Well the rights of privacy fall under the aegis of the 4th and 9th Ammendments. This is not a case where it is delegated to the States under the 10th.
------------------------- Amendment IV 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. ------------------------- Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ------------------------- Privacy, though not explicitly stated as such, is the 4th, backed up by the 9th. People have the right to do whatever they want in their own home or other private establishment, provided they are not breaking laws. In the case of 'devient sex' between consenting adults it is not possible for gubmint or police to acquire evidence to justify probible cause for a warrent needed for a search.
__________________
[url]\"http://www.duryea.org/pinky/gurkin.wav\" target=\"_blank\">AYPWIP?</a> .... <img border=\"0\" alt=\"[1ponder]\" title=\"\" src=\"graemlins/1ponder.gif\" /> <br />\"I think so Brain, but isn\'t a cucumber that small called a gherkin?\"<br /><br />Shut UP! Pinky! |
06-30-2003, 12:45 PM | #69 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Basically, you're right, but more amendments are involved. It's all about penumbras and emanations.
From Internet Lawyer. ______________________________ Nowhere does the text of the United States Constitution contain the word "privacy." [fn.4] The Supreme Court has found the concept of "privacy" to be protected by a number of the Amendments. [fn.5] Thus, privacy is known as a "penumbra right." [fn.6] It is the essence of the Bill of Rights and thus a guaranteed right. ________________________________ From UK law online (advocating privacy rights for the UK): __________________________________ Privacy is not an explicit right under the Constitution of the USA. The Fourth Amendment guarantees: "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The US Supreme Court implied a right to privacy and this also effected the state laws by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cases decided by the US Supreme Court such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479 and Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 show that privacy has been given constitutional status when the freedom of speech and the First Amendment is not in issue. This has been called a "penumbra right" of the Constitution. Justice Harlan clarified the ‘expectation of privacy’ in a two stage test in Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) which requires: "[F]irst that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation to be one that society is prepared to recognise as ‘reasonable’" The ideas of Warren and Brandeis, two leading American academics and judges from the early part of this century, are the main starting point for the privacy arguments in the US. According to their thesis: "The intensity and complexity of life, attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity so that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through invasion upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury." Fifteen years after the publication of their paper, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia most of the US states incorporated "the right to privacy" in their legislation. It is important to note that Warren and Brandeis based their thesis on the English cases but no similar development has occured in England. So, can we learn anything from the American developments? Here are some leading cases to give you a flavour of how the law has developed in the USA. In most respects, the differences from English law are not dramatic and the main reason for this is perhaps that, whilst recognising privacy as a value, the US courts have tended to recognise press freedom as an even greater value. ________________________________________ Points from TL: With all the legal gyrations regarding privacy out there, I try to simplify. The right to privacy was an inherent foundation for so many other rights found in the Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to procreate, freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom from the quartering of soldiers, to name a few off the top of my head. No site I found discusses it well, but this is certainly what you'll find in Supreme Court cases like Griswold -- Justice Douglas said it loudest, but not necessarily best. This wraps back around to an interesting argument regarding textualism and interpretation of the Constitution. Even though I am ever becoming more fed up with broad readings of the Constitution, I nevertheless feel that a right to privacy is so inherent that it is obvious. In short, I cannot see the founding fathers drafting the document absent the basic notion of privacy (easy to assume and dismiss in their time when good fences and large tracts of land made good neighbors). |
06-30-2003, 01:56 PM | #70 |
Zartan
Join Date: July 18, 2001
Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth
Age: 50
Posts: 5,373
|
Thanks for the constitutional lesson ya'll. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]
The more we know of our rights, the less likely it becomes that our ignorance of them can be used against us.
__________________
Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty? |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More Human Rights Abuses | Morgeruat | General Discussion | 2 | 01-04-2006 02:40 PM |
Britain calls for change to European Convention on Human Rights | Dreamer128 | General Discussion | 0 | 09-08-2005 06:37 AM |
Pissed off with Human Rights Groups | Avatar | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 61 | 09-12-2004 04:16 AM |
Iraqi police to train in country with poor human rights record and high police abuse | Skunk | General Discussion | 19 | 08-28-2003 06:33 PM |
RIGHTS!,...Human Rights...Inalienable Rights.... | MagiK | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 11 | 01-31-2002 05:06 PM |