For some reason--I must be a complete idiot--I can't find this right to privacy in the Constitution. I can find this:
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.
I'm kinda confused. Please help this moron who is getting the feeling that the Court is lurching left. If I'm right, and I must not be--after all, the Supremes are Supreme--it must be time for Stevens and O'Conner to retire, replaced by, say, Estrada and Owens.
posted on 06/26/2003 7:44:27 AM PDT
(Peace HAS COME AT LONG LAST to the tortured people of Iraq!)
Tnere may be no right to privacy in the Constitution, but, once the Supreme Court had claimed to have discovered it, and applied it to abortion, it was always strange that it was not applied to homosexuality.
"--I can't find this right to privacy in the Constitution. I can find this:
Take the first complete thought from the first sentence, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." What this means is that the people have a right to be secure. To do that they must be able to keep things private, or hidden from the government, and everyone else too. It's not all that hard to grasp.
posted on 06/26/2003 8:04:15 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson