Do we need a constitutional amendment to protect privacy?

National Constitution Center ^ | June 12, 2013 | NCC Staff

[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.

[manc]

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?

[muawiyah]

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

[fr_freak]

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?"

[jiggyboy]

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

[austinaero]

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

[Earthdweller]

"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.

[Uri’el-2012]

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]

[schm0e]

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

[schm0e]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[MeganC]

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.

[ThomasThomas]

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.

[muawiyah]

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

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[Amendment10]

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.

[white trash redneck]

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?

[muawiyah]

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

[muawiyah]

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.