Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do we need a constitutional amendment to protect privacy?
National Constitution Center ^ | June 12, 2013 | NCC Staff

Posted on 06/12/2013 8:12:50 AM PDT by EveningStar

As part of our “Next 10 Amendments” debate series, we’re asking our readers if it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect their privacy.

The furor in the past two weeks over government eavesdropping on the media and citizens has raised a lot of questions related to the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.constitutioncenter.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; constitution; privacy; righttoprivacy

1 posted on 06/12/2013 8:12:50 AM PDT by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

The thought of a ConCon being thrown open in an age of low-info voters scares the literal crap out of me.


2 posted on 06/12/2013 8:15:10 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We need one, but as the Constitution is inactive, it won’t help.


3 posted on 06/12/2013 8:15:18 AM PDT by Paladin2 (;-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Like privacy? Like RKBA?


4 posted on 06/12/2013 8:15:21 AM PDT by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

er do we not have the 4th oh wait even a couple of sheep freepers think it’s alright to spy and would rather attack the guy who told the world the NSA and the obama Govt is spying on us all .

We have enough laws and rules and we have a constitution , how about going by it and if the obama Govt can’t abide by the laws then why should we


5 posted on 06/12/2013 8:17:21 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
Yes we do. Here is the proposed text:
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
Oh wait....
6 posted on 06/12/2013 8:17:57 AM PDT by The Free Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

hell we need aconstitutional amendment to protect our constitution- like judge napolitano said htism ornign basically that what we’re seeign with hte abuses of power was the very reasons our constitutionwas set up i nthe first place- and he said, this is exactly what you see when there are no reigns on executive power- the constitution is no longer even a barrier to them


7 posted on 06/12/2013 8:18:41 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

That’s how abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution.


8 posted on 06/12/2013 8:19:27 AM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

You need a Constitution Police ,go against the constitution and you will be investigated by the IRS ,NSA, DHS ,SS and the FBI ,reverse of what Obama is doing LOL sorry


9 posted on 06/12/2013 8:19:55 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We already have a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes the right to privacy (although i would argue that the 9th amendment does as well). It’s called Roe v. Wade.

About time that conservatives started citing that ruling to support conservative arguments against government intrusions into other aspects of our lives — the NSA surveillance, and while we’re at it, intrusive IRS audits, investigations and tax return requirements.


10 posted on 06/12/2013 8:20:34 AM PDT by Maceman (Just say "NO" to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We’ve got one. Its called the 4th amendment.


11 posted on 06/12/2013 8:21:33 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

No. We already have one.


12 posted on 06/12/2013 8:23:22 AM PDT by publana (Beware the olive branch extended by a Dem for it disguises a clenched fist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc
It turns out it is OK to spy ~ always has been ~ but if the enemy catches you doing it they might just execute you on the spot.

Then there's the crowd who want the privacy to murder their unborn and their elderly relatives ~ without even fear of public tut tuting.

13 posted on 06/12/2013 8:27:49 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

No Constitutional amendment about privacy will affect the spying. It is the nature of government. In matters of collecting information, if it can be done it will be done. The only amendment that might help, if it did not lead to the formal abrogation of the Constitution and a full on Coup would be one limiting the government revenue and spending to a 5% cut of the GDP and/or one that reduces the government agencies to the four cabinet positions of the first Administration and limits government employment to .5% of the employed population and some et ceteras.


14 posted on 06/12/2013 8:27:52 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economiws In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

Perhaps we need an amendment that requires observance of the Constitution in toto? Would that amendment bany more observed by the government than what is already in the COnstitution?


15 posted on 06/12/2013 8:29:04 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economiws In One Lesson ONLINE http://steshaw.org/econohttp://www.fee.org/library/det)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The left has taken the “Humpty Dumpty” viewpoint on the Constitution -

“when I say ‘Constitutional’, it means exactly what I need it to mean at that moment, no more, no less”


16 posted on 06/12/2013 8:29:07 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

so should those who ordered the spying be executed <smiles.?


17 posted on 06/12/2013 8:31:11 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

it will only be ignored and they will only go around it.

I just got back from the dentist and everyone from the dentist to those waiting in the waiting room were all talking about this and saying this was out fo order and oabma has gone to far, course there were no low info people there as everyone seemed to know what was and has been going on


18 posted on 06/12/2013 8:32:40 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: manc
It's been the history of warfare that the victors get to write it, and of course they deal harshly with spies and those who ordered the spying.

Ordinary police surveillance of a public road is 'spying' ~ looking out your front window at the street is 'spying' ~ your neighbor looking back in through your uncovered window could also be spying.

Vision is always in an on-state, as is hearing. What you see and what you hear aren't always under your control. Criminalizing vision and hearing, although attempted from time to time, really isn't going to work out.

Occasionally one of the folks we trusted to keep the national secrets secret will run off with them to an enemy. Obviously we should execute him. After all, that's what we would do to any enemy spy, right?

19 posted on 06/12/2013 8:39:32 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

We already have the 4th Amendment, and it is being violated. If we cannot hold our government accountable for that amendment we cannot hold it accountable for anything else.


20 posted on 06/12/2013 8:41:14 AM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

what has he ran off with, how has he hurt the country , what secrets to harm us has he given away , do you know any of this or just the usual talking elitist types put out on TV?


21 posted on 06/12/2013 8:41:38 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

The USSC didn’t quite ‘find it’ ~ more like they ‘invented it’ ~ my copy still doesn’t have privacy in there.


22 posted on 06/12/2013 8:41:57 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
As part of our “Next 10 Amendments” debate series, we’re asking our readers if it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect their privacy.

This kind of thinking, at this stage of the game, shows just how far some people have their heads up their rear ends. It's like you're in your bed at midnight, and you hear the sound of breaking glass coming from the window downstairs, then you hear voices and the sounds of ransacking, so you look at your wife and say, "Do you think I should go downstairs and inform them that what they're doing is illegal?"
23 posted on 06/12/2013 8:42:47 AM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I hope you’re misusing “literal” in the same way that Biden typically misuses it.


24 posted on 06/12/2013 8:44:44 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Wasn’t the Roe v. Wade decision based mostly on the woman’s right to privacy?


25 posted on 06/12/2013 8:45:07 AM PDT by austinaero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Free Engineer
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.."

Here's the thing..most of our "stuff" they say isn't our stuff or you don't own that and you didn't build that. This is how progressive collectives roll.

26 posted on 06/12/2013 8:54:11 AM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
As part of our “Next 10 Amendments” debate series, we’re asking our readers if it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect their privacy.

There is already one.
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.[1]

27 posted on 06/12/2013 8:56:31 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
The idea that there exists a "right to privacy" that permits the taking of an innocent life is the apex of sophistry -- the absolute nadir of philosophy. The right to be left alone is inherent in the dignity of the individual. So inherent, it was understood to be so and perhaps for that reason there was seen no need to enumerate it. However, in a day which is properly said to have embraced a "Culture of Death" -- that is, a culture which is anti-life, such inherent dignity can no longer be assumed to be understood, nor to be present in the interpretation of its laws, any more than can be expected the same understand of the "Creator" from which flow inalienable rights as understood by the Founders.

source

28 posted on 06/12/2013 8:57:05 AM PDT by schm0e ("we are in the midst of a coup.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
That’s how abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court twisted the concept.

29 posted on 06/12/2013 8:57:05 AM PDT by schm0e ("we are in the midst of a coup.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: manc
The Brit who wrote the story based on interviews with him says that's what he said. And there will be more articles. Some dispute that he could be prepared to release the information he claims to have.

In hierarchy of believability a British writer is not at the top. Unfortunately with classification rules the way they are, the people who know the truth aren't allowed to tell us what it is.

I generally have a distaste for those who commit espionage against the United States.

30 posted on 06/12/2013 8:59:54 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
No. The Fourth Amendment is just fine.

What we need is a way to rid ourselves of terrorists without a police state. It's simple: Let the "well regulated militia" function as intended. Put a bounty on them with stiff penalties for false arrest.

31 posted on 06/12/2013 9:02:01 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Needed constitutional amendments.

1) To distinguish civil rights, that are natural and God-given to individuals, from corporate rights, that are granted by government. Corporations need some rights, but they do not need civil rights, which are reserved for human persons.

2) Since the senate will never agree to the repeal of the 17th amendment, a new system is needed to restore federalism, the power of the states. The best means to do so would be the creation of a Second Court of the United States, based on the original organization of the senate.

*Not* a federal court, but a court of 100 appointed by legislature only, state judges, on terms similar to those of their senators, who would *not* review constitutionality, which is a federal court purpose, but to review *jurisdiction*. That is, after the lower federal courts have reviewed cases for constitutionality, the 2nd Court would determine if they are truly a federal issue, or if they should be returned to the state courts, as *not* a federal issue. This would strongly reign in all three national branches of government.

Their other purpose would be that of original jurisdiction to all lawsuits between the national government and the states. So instead of federal courts hearing these cases at first, it would give the states considerable power over the national government.

Importantly, while the Supreme Court *could* hear appeals from the 2nd Court, if 2/3rds of the states found one way, the Supreme Court could not overturn their decision.

3) A prohibition of federal largess amendment, in which all federal funding to individuals must go through their state government, as block grants. The only direct payment to individuals from the US government should be for paychecks and retirement pay for former USG employees.


32 posted on 06/12/2013 9:12:38 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Ten more amendments for the tyrants to ignore are not worth the pen and paper needed to write them down.

We’re past pen and paper and the time is come for fortitude, determination, mettle, and nerve.


33 posted on 06/12/2013 9:18:37 AM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

How about constitutional amendment say we must follow the Constitution. With details like when elected to office people must defend the constitution.

/s

Even if some is actively trying to change the constitution they must follow it even during this process.

People must pay taxes while trying to repeal the 16th adornment.


34 posted on 06/12/2013 9:30:14 AM PDT by ThomasThomas (A bad hair day is not a mental issue, or is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Nobody is going to want to do militia duty without exemption from punishment for killing people.


35 posted on 06/12/2013 9:37:42 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Nobody is going to want to do militia duty without exemption from punishment for killing people.

Let the States figure that out. In the mean time, increase the bounty so that those who are willing to take the risk do so.

36 posted on 06/12/2013 9:47:38 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar; All
As part of our “Next 10 Amendments” debate series, we’re asking our readers if it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect their privacy.

Activist justices wrongly pulled the so-called right to privacy out of the 9th Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut.

US citizens need to address the real problem concerning privacy which is that the pirates that citizens are unthinkingly electing as their federal lawmakers are not upholding their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution, wrongly ignoring the federal government's constitutonally limited powers in particular.

37 posted on 06/12/2013 9:48:02 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

Wait a second. I thought that the SCOTUS’ abortion decision was based on a right to privacy that Justice Douglas had located in the Constitution’s emanations and penumbras?


38 posted on 06/12/2013 9:48:21 AM PDT by white trash redneck (Just one of B. Hussein Obama's "typical white people")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 ~ fast moving story ~ time to keep up with it.


39 posted on 06/12/2013 10:13:37 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: manc
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100221535/is-edward-snowdens-story-unravelling-why-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/ ~ read down through the comments and you'll come to one that reminds us the Guardian is a communist rag.

Then he ran off to China

Hmmmm ~

Pays to doubt that a self proclaimed spy is ever telling you the truth.

40 posted on 06/12/2013 10:18:43 AM PDT by muawiyah (Git yer Red STATE Arm Bands here - $29.95 - NOT SOLD IN STORES - TAX FREE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
I thought there were already emanations from penumbras that covered this.

At least that's what the liberals told me when it served their own privacy purposes at the time.

-PJ

41 posted on 06/12/2013 10:20:16 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

just like obama who is not telling the truth nor his thugs and corrupt officials


42 posted on 06/12/2013 10:47:13 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar

No point in adding any more amendments if they wont abide by the current ones.

The problem with the Constitution is its gross misinterpretation by Liberal judges & it being ignored by those charged with enforcing it, not its lack of adequate, proper content.


43 posted on 06/12/2013 10:57:52 AM PDT by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“The thought of a ConCon being thrown open in an age of low-info voters scares the literal crap out of me.”

Particularly since, in light of recent revelations, it’s safe to assume that the participants may have already been compromised on a wide scale via illegal surveillance by dear leader & co.

the last thing we need right now is to have a bunch of blackmail-facilitated leftist tools and puppets messing around with the constitution


44 posted on 06/12/2013 11:54:09 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EveningStar
What's shouldn't be, but apparently is, needed is an explicit statement of a few principles which all people should recognize as being requirements for legitimate governance.

To start with...

  1. The fact that an action is not so patently illegitimate as to require a remedy does not imply that the action is legitimate. Likewise, if finding an action to be patently illegitimate would justify a remedy that would be impractical, it is better to acknowledge that the action is illegitimate but cannot practically be rolled back, than to imply that the action was legitimate.
  2. All government personnel are required to make a good faith effort to abide by the Constitution, and not merely endeavor to avoid violating it so badly as to justify a remedy.
  3. The fact that a government action is not undertaken in a good faith effort to abide by the Constitution is, in and of itself, sufficient to imply that the action is patently illegitimate and worthy of remedy, regardless of whether the action could have been legitimate if done in good faith.
  4. The question of whether particular actions performed by particular individuals were done in good faith shall be a legitimate subject of factual inquiry; for example, if a prosecutor presents evidence gathered by a search, the defendant has the right to present evidence that he feels would show that the people conducting the search were not making a good faith effort to abide by the Constitution [which, among other things, requires that searches be conducted in reasonable fashion, and that those conducting the search make a good faith effort to avoid unnecessarily damaging the person's property]; a jury should be instructed that if they find that a search was not conducted in good faith, they should not construe any evidence thereby in any fashion detrimental to the defendant.
Much of the incrementalism of the government derives from the belief that a court's failure to find that an action implies a remedy implies a new threshold for what is legitimate. It shouldn't be necessary to state that such failure does not expand the scope of what's legitimate, but apparently it is.
45 posted on 06/17/2013 3:55:19 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson