Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Very Troubling Case........ at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by MrLiberty Didn't we just have a thread about a Constitutional Convention? I think it is dangerous to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2009, 05:31 PM
Spencer Collins's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Of Eden
Gender: Male
Posts: 19,271
Thanks: 17,919
Thanked 11,804 Times in 7,711 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLiberty View Post
Didn't we just have a thread about a Constitutional Convention?

I think it is dangerous to open the Constitution up to revision when no one knows what they want it to say.

If you want to see a civil war in this country just try to do this.
Yes but we can bring it up again if we wish to as it's related to this thread.I clearly mentioned the dangers of a convention.That said...we also have the right to amend the constitution...this is self evident!
__________________
"There are two kinds of light -- the glow that illuminates, and the glare -- that obscures." (James Thurber)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Spencer Collins For This Useful Post:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2009, 05:58 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 81,127
Thanks: 55,374
Thanked 26,240 Times in 18,773 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

Quote:
Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
"Right to privacy"?? Odd, I can'tseem to find that in the Constitution. Could you enlighten me and show me where you found that??
He may be talking about the "search" part of 'search and seizure"
__________________
Trump’s only true skill is the con...~Serwer|The Atlantic
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2009, 12:42 PM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,612 Times in 11,938 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

I found this about the right to privacy in the Constitution.

================================================== =========

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrLiberty For This Useful Post:
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2009, 12:51 PM
zoobie555's Avatar
New Age Constitutionalist
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montana
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,057
Thanks: 271
Thanked 356 Times in 271 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLiberty View Post
I found this about the right to privacy in the Constitution.

================================================== =========

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
I thought a broader interpretation of the constitution was "bad"?

We need to ammend the constitution, include right to privacy, and make some of these elusive passages more explicit.

Right now it can be argued that we DON'T have a right to privacy... THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. Our right to privacy shouldn't be debatable.
__________________
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire


"You're either with us or a f&*king terrorist"

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zoobie555 For This Useful Post:
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2009, 01:28 PM
MrLiberty's Avatar
professional curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,506
Thanks: 21,953
Thanked 18,612 Times in 11,938 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

I don't believe that this is a broad interpretation of the Constitution.
__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2009, 01:04 PM
zoobie555's Avatar
New Age Constitutionalist
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montana
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,057
Thanks: 271
Thanked 356 Times in 271 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrLiberty View Post
I don't believe that this is a broad interpretation of the Constitution.
You're right... I wasn't speaking about this case specifically... just about broad interpretations of the constitution in general...
__________________
"Power always has to be kept in check; power exercised in secret, especially under the cloak of national security, is doubly dangerous."
-William Proxmire


"You're either with us or a f&*king terrorist"

“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” - Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2009, 02:36 PM
mlurp's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Flatlands
Gender: Male
Posts: 37,487
Thanks: 19,199
Thanked 10,921 Times in 8,518 Posts
Default Re: Very Troubling Case........

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoobie555 View Post
You're right... I wasn't speaking about this case specifically... just about broad interpretations of the constitution in general...
A major reason the courts and the SC should all be true Constitutionalist.
__________________


Improvise - Adapt - Over Come...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
case, troubling, very

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0