Comments on: The Constitution and the Right to Privacy http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:41:31 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anderson Danger http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-704020 Anderson Danger Tue, 02 Aug 2011 08:52:18 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-704020 what about former sex offender right to privy and their name work address and email are posted all over the internet ? what about former sex offender right to privy and their name work address and email are posted all over the internet ?

]]> By: Hahaha http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-575818 Hahaha Thu, 19 May 2011 23:51:04 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-575818 Someone has never heard the various expectations of privacy used in law. How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are outdoors and able to be photographed? There's no privacy there. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors. I could walk up to you on the street and take your picture and post it on a website and you'd have no legal grounds for an invasion of privacy case because your expectation of privacy is significantly reduced when you are outside of your home. People are even allowed to dig through your trash and it's legal and not a violation of your privacy. You threw it away, so it's no longer yours or in your home, thus YOUR privacy has not been invaded; that person is just going through trash. Abandon the paranoia and come back to reality. Someone has never heard the various expectations of privacy used in law. How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are outdoors and able to be photographed? There's no privacy there. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy outdoors. I could walk up to you on the street and take your picture and post it on a website and you'd have no legal grounds for an invasion of privacy case because your expectation of privacy is significantly reduced when you are outside of your home. People are even allowed to dig through your trash and it's legal and not a violation of your privacy. You threw it away, so it's no longer yours or in your home, thus YOUR privacy has not been invaded; that person is just going through trash. Abandon the paranoia and come back to reality.

]]> By: Brenda http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-569372 Brenda Sun, 15 May 2011 15:12:30 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-569372 The government are the ones who take pictures of us from google earth and all the stuff up above, not the state. That is invading EVERYONE'S right to privacy. That is a definate invasion of our privacy. This is suppose to be the land of the free! Where are we free anymore with the government watching our every move? The government are the ones who take pictures of us from google earth and all the stuff up above, not the state. That is invading EVERYONE'S right to privacy. That is a definate invasion of our privacy. This is suppose to be the land of the free! Where are we free anymore with the government watching our every move?

]]> By: Michael Boldin http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-245196 Michael Boldin Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:23:44 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-245196 Lemastre - you bring up a very important point. Most people actually read the Constitution backwards - not in its words, but in its meaning. The Constitution was written under a principle called "positive grant" what this means is simple - if a power is specifically listed (positively there) in the constitution, then (and only then) can the federal government use that power. The founders felt this principle was so important that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment. In short, if a power isn't spelled out in the constitution and given to the feds, they can't do it. Lemastre – you bring up a very important point. Most people actually read the Constitution backwards – not in its words, but in its meaning.

The Constitution was written under a principle called “positive grant” what this means is simple – if a power is specifically listed (positively there) in the constitution, then (and only then) can the federal government use that power.

The founders felt this principle was so important that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment.

In short, if a power isn’t spelled out in the constitution and given to the feds, they can’t do it.

]]> By: Lemastre http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-243759 Lemastre Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:52:30 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-243759 In my daily life, privacy is mainly freedom from unwanted telephone solicitations, panhandlers, and various salesmen at my door. I don't see anything in the Constitution regarding these mundane items, and they are apparently allowed as long as I'm able to turn away without being detained or threatened. The effectiveness of so-called "do not call" lists is hard to judge without knowing how many calls you'd have received had your number not been on the lists. I still regularly receive calls from various "veterans" and law-enforcement fund-raisers. I suppose the lists are legal because most uninvited solicitation calls disturb the sanctity of the home. In my daily life, privacy is mainly freedom from unwanted telephone solicitations, panhandlers, and various salesmen at my door. I don’t see anything in the Constitution regarding these mundane items, and they are apparently allowed as long as I’m able to turn away without being detained or threatened. The effectiveness of so-called “do not call” lists is hard to judge without knowing how many calls you’d have received had your number not been on the lists. I still regularly receive calls from various “veterans” and law-enforcement fund-raisers. I suppose the lists are legal because most uninvited solicitation calls disturb the sanctity of the home.

]]> By: Jeff http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-79898 Jeff Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:40:41 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-79898 While I fully agree with the statements in the main article, I have to comment on a comment. Aborting a fetus that would not be viable outside of the mother seems a far sight from murder in my humble opinion. Sorry for the threadjack, back on topic, marriage, gay or otherwise, seems to tread a ground outside the Constitution. It seems too much of religion and government blending together. Marriage needs to be left out of the legal arena. If my religion allows for marriage to multiple partners how can the 10th override the 1st? When the threat to send in the army into Utah territory to end the multiple marriage of the LDS church that was braking the 1st in a major way. As to my previous point I don't see how the 10th can override any other amendment, this is the only area that seems grey to me. While I fully agree with the statements in the main article, I have to comment on a comment. Aborting a fetus that would not be viable outside of the mother seems a far sight from murder in my humble opinion. Sorry for the threadjack, back on topic, marriage, gay or otherwise, seems to tread a ground outside the Constitution. It seems too much of religion and government blending together. Marriage needs to be left out of the legal arena. If my religion allows for marriage to multiple partners how can the 10th override the 1st? When the threat to send in the army into Utah territory to end the multiple marriage of the LDS church that was braking the 1st in a major way. As to my previous point I don’t see how the 10th can override any other amendment, this is the only area that seems grey to me.

]]> By: Limits vs Empowers » Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-61294 Limits vs Empowers » Tenth Amendment Center Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:45:35 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-61294 [...] In response to “The Constitution and the Right to Privacy“  [...] [...] In response to “The Constitution and the Right to Privacy“  [...]

]]> By: Logan Blankenship http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-60973 Logan Blankenship Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:34:16 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-60973 I sort of agree and sort of do not. The <em>federal</em> government cannot do anything not defined in the constitution, a limit which has been violated to an extreme degree. However the <em>states'</em> rights to limit personal freedom are not defined by the Federal constitution (and should not be). The ninth amendment, does, however, give a strong argument in favor of even the states not being able to limit personal freedom (although the real purpose of the ninth amendment was to encompass specifically those rights not mentioned in the bill of rights that had previously been rights of the colonists under Birtish law, plus it's disputable whether the ninth amendment applies to the how the states can limit freedom, since it's questionable whether the Federal constitution has jurisdiction of what the state's can and can't do do, other than where specifically mentioned. The Confederate constitution, for example, stated that if the national constitution and a state's constitution were at odds, the state won). The line should be drawn at limiting freedom that has no real or direct effect on the public. Sodomy, prostitution (possibly), and assisted suicide for example, should not be illegal, while abortion, being murder, should be illegal (on the state level unitl a constitutional amendment bans it, although the ninth and fourteenth amendments could justify a standard federal statute against it), gay marrriage is a tough call. On one hand, it is a <em>public</em> not a <em>private</em> institution and additonally involve certains government benefits which could be construed to effect the entire public, such as the tax benefits that come with marriage. Based on this, one could argue that it is the duty of the people of the state, county, or city recognizing the marriage to decided whether or not they wish to recognize such an institution, since it's a government by the people for the people. On the other hand, certain priveleges of marriage, such as next of kin rights, are strictly private, and the government has no bussiness banning them from gays, even if the constitution technically allows such a ban. Also, the federal government can, technically speaking, gain jurisdiction in one of these questions by means of a constitutional amendment, although, in the spirit of the constitution and the traditions left by the founding fathers, amendments restricting personal liberties should be extremely sparing (I do personally strongly support an amendment defining abortion as first degree murder, but most other amendments restricting personal liberty I oppose, such as flag burning, and I'm split on gay marriage). I sort of agree and sort of do not. The federal government cannot do anything not defined in the constitution, a limit which has been violated to an extreme degree. However the states’ rights to limit personal freedom are not defined by the Federal constitution (and should not be). The ninth amendment, does, however, give a strong argument in favor of even the states not being able to limit personal freedom (although the real purpose of the ninth amendment was to encompass specifically those rights not mentioned in the bill of rights that had previously been rights of the colonists under Birtish law, plus it’s disputable whether the ninth amendment applies to the how the states can limit freedom, since it’s questionable whether the Federal constitution has jurisdiction of what the state’s can and can’t do do, other than where specifically mentioned. The Confederate constitution, for example, stated that if the national constitution and a state’s constitution were at odds, the state won). The line should be drawn at limiting freedom that has no real or direct effect on the public. Sodomy, prostitution (possibly), and assisted suicide for example, should not be illegal, while abortion, being murder, should be illegal (on the state level unitl a constitutional amendment bans it, although the ninth and fourteenth amendments could justify a standard federal statute against it), gay marrriage is a tough call. On one hand, it is a public not a private institution and additonally involve certains government benefits which could be construed to effect the entire public, such as the tax benefits that come with marriage. Based on this, one could argue that it is the duty of the people of the state, county, or city recognizing the marriage to decided whether or not they wish to recognize such an institution, since it’s a government by the people for the people. On the other hand, certain priveleges of marriage, such as next of kin rights, are strictly private, and the government has no bussiness banning them from gays, even if the constitution technically allows such a ban. Also, the federal government can, technically speaking, gain jurisdiction in one of these questions by means of a constitutional amendment, although, in the spirit of the constitution and the traditions left by the founding fathers, amendments restricting personal liberties should be extremely sparing (I do personally strongly support an amendment defining abortion as first degree murder, but most other amendments restricting personal liberty I oppose, such as flag burning, and I’m split on gay marriage).

]]> By: David Smith http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/comment-page-1/#comment-60813 David Smith Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:16:40 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/#comment-60813 The only point that I would add is that there exists a fundamental difference between the Federal Government, which these amendments limits, and the State Governments, which the 10th Amendment empowers. Actually, 'empowers' is not the right term because power not delegated is 'reserved.' That would entail that it (supposedly) never left the States in the first place! This means that the States have the Power to engage in the topics that the author listed with no further restrictions. This means that every single State can handle gay marriage in a different way. This means that every single State can have restrictions on abortion and virtually every State's statutory law can look different than every single other State. It just means that the Federal Government cannot have any influence in these, and other topics, because, once again, Power is not delegated! Good post, and good points. But don't leave out the fundamental difference in those that the Constitution limits and those that the Constitution empowers. The only point that I would add is that there exists a fundamental difference between the Federal Government, which these amendments limits, and the State Governments, which the 10th Amendment empowers. Actually, ‘empowers’ is not the right term because power not delegated is ‘reserved.’ That would entail that it (supposedly) never left the States in the first place!

This means that the States have the Power to engage in the topics that the author listed with no further restrictions. This means that every single State can handle gay marriage in a different way. This means that every single State can have restrictions on abortion and virtually every State’s statutory law can look different than every single other State.

It just means that the Federal Government cannot have any influence in these, and other topics, because, once again, Power is not delegated!

Good post, and good points. But don’t leave out the fundamental difference in those that the Constitution limits and those that the Constitution empowers.

]]>