why don't the right wingers care or anyone hold them accountable?
http://www.alternet.org/rights/47459/
2007-02-16 13:23:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Technically, no. There is no explicet right to privacy in the Constitution. However, there are implied rights to privacy inherent in the third, fourth fith and sith amendments.
All of which imply that there are limits to government in terms of your personal life.
The truth of the Bill of Rights is that they are not a list of our rights, they are the highlights of the rights we have ABOVE ALL OTHERS. There exists no Constitutional passage premitting or denying the consumption of chocolate. According to some modes of thinking, there is no right to chocolate and therefore if Congress passed a law against chocolate, there would be no Constitutional basis to remove it.
Note: when the contitutional congress gathered, some delegates opposed the Bill of Rights not for governments sake, but they feared that in the future, people would believe that the constitution guaranteed ONLY those rights outlined, instead of seeing it as highlighting the truly important ones.
2007-02-16 13:48:56 · answer #1 · answered by phoenixbard2004 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually the Constitution does not directly guarantee privacy. Privacy to some extent is implied in the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments. But never gauranteed anywhere.
2007-02-16 14:04:04 · answer #2 · answered by Jay 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Currently, the Supreme court is split on the matter. Stevens and Ginsberg certainly wouple find one, but the conservatives have explicited stated that they do NOT find such a right (Read Roe v Wade and Lawerence v Texas).
Lawerence was decided NOT on a privacy right, but on due process grounds.
2007-02-16 21:37:42 · answer #3 · answered by tallthatsme 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on what your doing in private. If you are privatly making a bomb to blow someone up, your privacy is no more. If your in your home having sex in a wierd position, thats your private business, unless you are having that sex with an animal. That is not allowed in most states so the privacy no longer holds true. In conclusion, privacy is in the eyes of the beholder.
2007-02-16 13:43:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it doesn't but it should.
I have another question about chocolate...
The government has the duty to protect the welfare and safety of the people, and the people have a right to pursue happiness. If chocolate is not proved harmful, what grounds could the government use to defend a ban of chocolate in a court challenge?
2007-02-16 14:10:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Presidential Oath of Office has the President swear that he will, to the best of his abilities, protect the country's national security. So what if the CIA tracks phone calls of suspected terrorists? Are you one? No. So get over it.
2007-02-16 13:27:51 · answer #6 · answered by bigsey93harrison37 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
who guarantees the constitution?
2007-02-16 13:33:53 · answer #7 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Poor dumb bastards would rather be safe than free.
2007-02-16 13:27:57 · answer #8 · answered by somathus 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋