It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Right To Privacy: Myth, Liberal Conspiracy or Fundamental Freedom?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
This is what it all boils down to...

Do Americans have a fundamental right to privacy?

This is the foundational premise of virtually every political debate, is the ultimate line in the cultural divide and (for all intensive purposes) determines whether or not one is socially considered either "liberal" or "conservative" in the modern lexicon.

Is the right to privacy a myth conspired by deviants seeking to undermine morality or a inevitable expansion of fundamental civil liberties in a progressive society?

Regardless of where you fall in the debate, it's not a simple matter of disagreement or opinion. The other side is inherently involved in a conspiracy to make up point down and render black as white. It's that disparaging a difference. By definition, there are no moderates on this issue; Not honest ones anyway.

And the heart of the disagreement over one's right to privacy stems from another fundamental debate: Does the United States operate with three equal, but separate branches of government under a system of checks and balances, or does just the executive and legislative hold all the power, while the judiciary simply interprets the Constitution to set precedent upon citizens, but not set restrictions on our law makers?

In other words, can the Supreme Court of the United States rule a law by a governing body unconstitutional?

The "liberal" position on these issues needs little clarification. It's precedent. It's the law.

Judicial review (1803) is the law of the land.

As is Griswald versus Connecticut (1965), which determined an 1879 ban on contraceptives an invasion of constitutionally protected privacy.

And Roe versus Wade (1973) which expanded the right to privacy to protect an unrestricted right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy.

This is what's it's all about. The rights and liberties of citizens (in these cases their "privacy") versus the authoritarian right of government to restrict those rights.

It is not about a "constitutional right to consensual adult sodomy" as some may attempt to belittle such precedents as Lawrence versus Texas (2003). But rather, can the government bust in your house on a false report, find you in an act deemed "deviant" by a governing body, then take away your freedom as a result?

Again, the "liberal" position is clear. No, the government should be restricted, not it's citizens. The people always get the benefit of the doubt. Though a "conservative" reading of the Constitution will find no such mention of said "constitutional right to consensual adult sodomy" (for obvious reasons), the Supreme Court of the United States (in adhering to precedent since 1803) has found violations of constitutional rights in all these struck down bans in some combination of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and/or Ninth Amendments.

And that brings us right back to the alleged "liberal conspiracy." I believe it intellectually dishonest on the part of conservatives to say the left is inventing rights, or more specifically seeking to advance any "culture" over another as is often the accusation with regard to sodomy and abortion. It's much more fundamental than that. It's about freedom.

With regard to the "conservative conspiracy," I think that which seeks to overthrow the precedents of judicial review and citizen's rights in favor of an alleged right of government to restrict those rights speaks for itself.

So, I'll let it.

Out of Nothing at All
The myth of a right to privacy.
National Review
August 09, 2005

Judges Should Have 'Limited' Role, Roberts Says
John G. Roberts (Bush SCOTUS Nominee) and the "So-Called Right to Privacy"
Washington Post
August 3, 2005

Praying for Supreme Court Shake Up
Pat Robertson warns Supreme Court bringing wrath of God on United States
People For The American Way

Indeed, Pat Robertson, in his 2003 letter to fellow Christians asking for a prayer offensive to bring about the retirement of already ailing Judges frames the "conservative" position against the 'oligarchical tyranny' of a pro-citizen Supreme Court perfectly.


[T]here is a higher tribunal than the United States Supreme Court. There is the Judge of all the earth. We must earnestly come before Him now and cry out for redress of our grievances. He loves America as much as we do, and He does not wish to destroy it. But no culture has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality. And no society has ever been spared the wrath of God which has been guilty of slaughtering tens of millions of the innocent.

In short, by its distorted reading of the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its "discovery" of emanations from the 14th Amendment called "penumbras," the Supreme Court is bringing upon this nation the wrath of God when the precious liberties that we love so much may be taken away from all of us.


It's obviously no coincidence that those claiming "the right to privacy" is a myth seek to teach one in science class. I just wanted to make sure so-called "conservatives" (that once stood for personal freedom and less government) knew exactly what they were getting into before we as a nation take the plunge.

Thanks to a successful propaganda campaign against a 200 year precedent of courts protecting your liberties from government, we're just about to turn the keys over to authoritarians. Up is indeed well on it's way to pointing down. And black is just as about as white as you can get. Liberalism is the the new classical conservativism, and there just isn't an adequate word to describe the pro-state authoritarian conspirators of today, so a popular euphemism will have to do: neo-conservativism.

It's a conspiracy of the highest order indeed. And there's been but one target all along...

Your rights.




[edit on 16-10-2005 by RANT]




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
There is no clear right to privacy defined in the U.S. Constitution. Previous courts have found an implied privacy right between the lines of the plain text, but that is always subject to change by future court reinterpretations.

My main question to you is --

If we need a right to privacy, why don't we pass an Amendment to the Constitution making it clear, rather than rely on the whim of 9 men (and women) in black?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
If we need a right to privacy, why don't we pass an Amendment to the Constitution making it clear, rather than rely on the whim of 9 men (and women) in black?


That would be the pro-state authoritarian solution. It doesn't exist until we legislate the bejesus out of it.

I happen to find the Constitution of the United States quite adequate. And my rights both guaranteed and advanced by it aren't whims or subject to same from one man (or woman) and 100 of his closest political allies that seek to govern me.

My question to you is... why change precedent now?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
My question to you is... why change precedent now?


Here are a couple of great precedents, don't you think RANT?

Dred Scott v. Sandford:



. . . . . . We think they [people of African ancestry] are . . . not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. . . .


Plessy v. Ferguson:



That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.


Still think precedents should never be overturned?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Still think precedents should never be overturned?


That's not what I said, and you deflected the question.

What is so offensive and "tyrannical" (to quote the propaganda against it) about an individual's right to privacy that it should now be overturned?

If the answer is just so you can legislatively ban things the country overwhelming supports, you have a serious problem with that position.

And I can certainly understand trying to deflect the question and muddy the issue in that regard. That's the job of the National Review and John Roberts and Pat Robertson and Fox News and President Bush in this conspiracy.

So let's be clear about it for a change. Why should "the right to privacy" be overturned?

Semantics? It's not fair? It makes an authoritarian's job harder?

To all of which I say good.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
A most excellent, informative and enjoyable post!
Bravo, RANT!

I found this line particularly eye-opening and it made me laugh out loud:


Originally posted by RANT
It's obviously no coincidence that those claiming "the right to privacy" is a myth seek to teach one in science class.


It's clear to me that the new conservatives or neo-conservatives and some of the old ones, too, DO support the right to privacy when it comes to their privacies. Take, for example, all the documents not handed over in the evaluation processes of Ambassador Bolton, and the new Supreme Court Justice Roberts.

This is really not about privacy, but control (power). The neo-conservatives want the government to have the power to control the behavior of all the people of the country in certain areas of their lives. And I'm afraid to say that it comes back around to religion. And the neo-word for religion is 'morals'.

In the 2 areas you mentioned, abortion and homosexuality, the reason the neo-conservatives give for them being 'morally wrong' is based on religion. So it's clear to me, especially when coupled with the fact that they want to teach the creationism myth in school, that this 'fight' is less about privacy than religious power. Complete control. A government run, not by the Constitution and law of the land, but under the 'righteous' precepts of the pious neo-conservative church.

And that, my friends, has me shaking in my boots more than any terrorists on Earth. We know what comes with religious power, force and control. Or we should.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I think there should be a right to privacy, but what that means is still open to interpretation.

I for one don't see abortion to be covered by a right to privacy...abortion is a medical procedure which requires payment for services, something that Congress and/or the States has the right to control. Furthermore, to my way of thinking, it's the criminal taking of a life. I believe abortion is no more covered by a right to privacy than the "right" to buy coc aine from a drug dealer, something the Supreme Court has yet to read into the Constitution.

I believe Roe v. Wade is on par with the other "bad" decisions I quoted above...it's probably cost more human lives than those two put together.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A most excellent, informative and enjoyable post!
Bravo, RANT!

I found this line particularly eye-opening and it made me laugh out loud:


Originally posted by RANT
It's obviously no coincidence that those claiming "the right to privacy" is a myth seek to teach one in science class.


It's clear to me that the new conservatives or neo-conservatives and some of the old ones, too, DO support the right to privacy when it comes to their privacies. Take, for example, all the documents not handed over in the evaluation processes of Ambassador Bolton, and the new Supreme Court Justice Roberts.

This is really not about privacy, but control (power). The neo-conservatives want the government to have the power to control the behavior of all the people of the country in certain areas of their lives. And I'm afraid to say that it comes back around to religion. And the neo-word for religion is 'morals'.

In the 2 areas you mentioned, abortion and homosexuality, the reason the neo-conservatives give for them being 'morally wrong' is based on religion. So it's clear to me, especially when coupled with the fact that they want to teach the creationism myth in school, that this 'fight' is less about privacy than religious power. Complete control. A government run, not by the Constitution and law of the land, but under the 'righteous' precepts of the pious neo-conservative church.

And that, my friends, has me shaking in my boots more than any terrorists on Earth. We know what comes with religious power, force and control. Or we should.



Excellent points BH, it's also scary when you have republican's who vote for these neo conservatives and don't know what they are voting for because they are blinded by the word 'republican' ...Their values towards issues in this country are assumed to automatically mesh with the guy running for office in their chosen political party... And assuming is dangerous and naive....Bush is a machavallian, look at the hypocrisy and track record of the man

[edit on 10-8-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I agree with a lot that has been said by RANT, Benevolent Heretic, and True Lies on this thread. But, I want to address the matter of the Constitution, which stands as one of the major true sources of law in this country. No, the United States Code is not law.

The right to privacy, in itself, is very vague. If it was explicitly declared in the constitution, "you have a right to privacy," then our judicial system would end up with a whole slew of problems...

For example, a man is seen murdering and depositing a dead body in his home. When brought to trial, the murderer may declare that his constitutional rights were violated by the witness, and, potentially may get off, even under the 4th amendment.

The 4th amendment is essentially our right to privacy. The 4th amendment states, "Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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."

www.usconstitution.net...

Basically, you have a right to privacy from authorities as long as you do not break any laws. THAT is a clear indication of what your right to privacy entails.

Interestingly enough though, the Patriot Act sought to make it merely "reasonable cause," which has less severity than probable cause would entail. This is one of the issues of the Patriot Act being fought in court now.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   
And thank you djohnsto77 for your willingness to discuss the actual privacy 'debate' from your perspective, and not just the prevalent rhetoric.

I believe your last post concedes to some extent that which we all know to be inherently true no matter what the "ivory tower neo-cons" pontificate.


Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think there should be a right to privacy, but what that means is still open to interpretation.


Indeed, the predominant and virulent anti-privacy tact of neo-conservatism is a ruse. Or rather, it's a ruse for George W. Bush to stand before Americans with his current tact against libertarian "activism" and say anything other than...

"I believe the government should have more rights than you." ~ A hypothetically honest George W. Bush

Though if he did (shortly after impeachment), we could move on to the more honest debate from a true conservative position, which you've laid out thusly....


Originally posted by djohnsto77
I for one don't see abortion to be covered by a right to privacy...abortion is a medical procedure which requires payment for services, something that Congress and/or the States has the right to control. Furthermore, to my way of thinking, it's the criminal taking of a life. I believe abortion is no more covered by a right to privacy than the "right" to buy coc aine from a drug dealer, something the Supreme Court has yet to read into the Constitution.


On part one of your two pronged interpretation, that again is a privacy issue. Either the government has a right to know the results of your pregnancy, cancer, and AIDS test or they don't. And either the government has a right to determine your course of treatment as a third party standing between you and your medical professional, or they don't. Is your acceptable level of risk up to you and your choice of medical professional, or up to congressional review? It's as simple as that. Again, we're right back at a right to privacy, which all reasonable people seem to hold dear and only a fool would openly belittle in public using plain language.

On part two of your interpretation, it's a "criminal taking of life" (aka murder)... Or rather the argument that abortion should be considered "murder" (because it's perfectly legal now), is another can of worms outside the debate over a Right to Privacy and much more akin to a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty (or a theological lesson in church) than anything in this discussion.

But let's not pretend we get to play moderates on the issue of a right to privacy, because we don't.

As those leading the charge against the right to privacy make clear this "mischief began 40 years ago in the case Griswold v. Connecticut" and undoing Roe versus Wade on that basis undoes more than just an unrestricted right to private medical consult and decisions.

And honest neo-conservatives like Pat Robertson make that direction perfectly clear.

Benevolent Heretic parsed out one's options clear as a bell. Either we live in a free society (where not all happen to agree or do as we wish) governed by laws with deference to rights of people emanating from the Constitution or we empower a government run, not by the Constitution and law of the land, but under the 'righteous' precepts of the pious neo-conservative church.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
In fact lots of good posts here IMO.


Originally posted by RANT
"I believe the government should have more rights than you."

... Or rather the argument that abortion should be considered "murder" (because it's perfectly legal now), is another can of worms outside the debate over a Right to Privacy and much more akin to a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty (or a theological lesson in church) than anything in this discussion.


I've never seen it spelled out so clearly.

Too bad you'll never see this kind of debate at a political level or in the mainstream media.

to all!
.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Obviously there are limited rights while in prison. And significant portions of your right to privacy are among the first to go. But when it comes to medical treatment for female inmates, is a don't ask, don't tell policy warranted?

Read about this woman's plight and how a transfer from California to Missouri (and an untimely meeting with Clarence Thomas) may have changed her life forever.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think some of it is liberals trying to excuse whatever crimes they want to commit, such as abortion.

If there's anything in the Constitution regarding privacy, it would have to be the Fourth Amendment, which states:

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.



Privacy to me means the government can't go snooping around without just cause.

Unfortunately, there are some who will try to bend and twist the Constitution to make it say what they want it to say. I made it a point to print a copy of the Constitution and so far I have yet to see where it says you have "privacy" as defined by Roe v. Wade. You DON'T. Blackmun, the author of Roe, even said that were there no question that the unborn child is human, Roe wouldn't have even passed. Thing is, pro-aborts put forth the question "is the child even human."
That's like asking is the sky blue--trying to cast doubt. Know what, the serpent pulled that same stunt in the Garden of Eden: "Yea, hath God said?"

You have all this proof that an unborn child is human from conception and certain people refuse to listen--they have their own agenda. People want to be able to do what they want and they use euphemisms to quiet their consciences.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I think some of it is liberals trying to excuse whatever crimes they want to commit, such as abortion.

If there's anything in the Constitution regarding privacy, it would have to be the Fourth Amendment, which states:

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.



Privacy to me means the government can't go snooping around without just cause.

Unfortunately, there are some who will try to bend and twist the Constitution to make it say what they want it to say. I made it a point to print a copy of the Constitution and so far I have yet to see where it says you have "privacy" as defined by Roe v. Wade. You DON'T. Blackmun, the author of Roe, even said that were there no question that the unborn child is human, Roe wouldn't have even passed. Thing is, pro-aborts put forth the question "is the child even human."
That's like asking is the sky blue--trying to cast doubt. Know what, the serpent pulled that same stunt in the Garden of Eden: "Yea, hath God said?"

You have all this proof that an unborn child is human from conception and certain people refuse to listen--they have their own agenda. People want to be able to do what they want and they use euphemisms to quiet their consciences.


I could not agree more with you here. Last month my wife miscarried our son at 22 weeks. Due to this stupid use of is it a real human or not we could not get birth or death certificate only a death report yet we had to have a funeral for him as his size justified this. Ok I know for fact my son was human and this whole Roe vs. Wade is nothing more than a right to kill another human being because they are a burden to you. I see it as if you can't hadle the responcibility of having a child don't do that action that can lead to such as no means of BC is 100% my wifes pregnancy is proof of that. Also their latest discovery they claim to have made where a child does not feel pain until the 7th month of preganc is just insane the childs brain is more developed than a snake at that point and a snake certainly feels pain. It's just another excuse for late abortions.

Sorry if I stepped off track with most of this post but abortion is a boiling topic for me.

As for rights about snooping government well the PA certainly seems to over step the constitution on our rights of any kind if you fully read it you can see this multiple times. I'ld like to see the PA go up in a puff of smoke and burn letter for letter the constutution on the chests of those in office now so that they do not forget what our rights are.

God Bless
Raist



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Yeah RANT. GOOD post. Thank you.

I agree of course. It's all about freedom, and our rights. And an old, old conspiracy to take them away from us - one that is just now coming to a climax.




top topics



 
0

log in

join