Skip to comments.Do we need a constitutional amendment to protect privacy?
Posted on 06/12/2013 8:12:50 AM PDT by EveningStar
As part of our Next 10 Amendments debate series, were asking our readers if its 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 ...
The thought of a ConCon being thrown open in an age of low-info voters scares the literal crap out of me.
We need one, but as the Constitution is inactive, it won’t help.
Like privacy? Like RKBA?
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
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 seizedOh wait....
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
That’s how abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution.
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
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.
We’ve got one. Its called the 4th amendment.
No. We already have one.
Then there's the crowd who want the privacy to murder their unborn and their elderly relatives ~ without even fear of public tut tuting.
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.
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?
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”
so should those who ordered the spying be executed <smiles.?
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
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?
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.
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?
The USSC didn’t quite ‘find it’ ~ more like they ‘invented it’ ~ my copy still doesn’t have privacy in there.
I hope you’re misusing “literal” in the same way that Biden typically misuses it.
Wasn’t the Roe v. Wade decision based mostly on the woman’s right to privacy?
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.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court twisted the concept.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about constitutional amendment say we must follow the Constitution. With details like when elected to office people must defend the constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 ~ fast moving story ~ time to keep up with it.
Then he ran off to China
Pays to doubt that a self proclaimed spy is ever telling you the truth.
At least that's what the liberals told me when it served their own privacy purposes at the time.
just like obama who is not telling the truth nor his thugs and corrupt officials
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.
“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
To start with...