Privacy in a Republican World.

[modest mouse]

"We want small government and more local control."

But in truth we get govt. ass-rape and less state's rights. How frustrating is it to be an educated citizen in this country? I mean Goddamn. I said Goddamn!

Alito should be slaughtered on privacy. But... we'll be stuck with his views for 40 years.

 

[Minkey Boodle]

Dude, you're makin' me cry.

 

[DevilishTexan]

And with Democrat rule we get to keep a whole 40% of our check with the rest going to people sitting on their ass watching infomercials and Judge Judy.

 

[medjay]

So, how do we get to keep our money and keep our drapes closed at the same time???

 

[JazzManJim]

Is the pack of privacy exclusively a Republican problem?

I mean, as one of those people I think you'd consider uneducated, I definitely recall the ECHELON project coming about in a time where America wasn't run by Republicans. That project, which as far as I know, is still ongoing, was far more intrusive than anything I've seen this administration concoct.

Let's face it, ECHELON was scouring every single e-mail and telephone call in the United States, the domestic ones, not the ones that had some part of it outside the country, and not the ones that involves a suspected terrorist either. It looked at every freaking thing and the Republican's weren't in charge of that baby.

I'm a big-time fan of small government but let's not pin this whole thing on the Republicans. Let's go ahead and pin it on folks who like big government, no matter who they are.

 

[modest mouse]

So, how do we get to keep our money and keep our drapes closed at the same time???

Educate the voting blocks of the South. Until then we are on a dangerous course.

My biggest concern is that it is quickly becoming heresy to simply ask questions.

 

[modest mouse]

Is the pack of privacy exclusively a Republican problem?

I mean, as one of those people I think you'd consider uneducated,

I doubt I am any more educated than you are and if so certainly not substantially so. Not meaningfully so.

But yes, Jim, Republicans are who I shall pin privacy issues on. The people I deal with daily who have truly backward views on privacy (and other things) are almost entirely Republicans. On a national scale I do think its safe to say that Republicans in the Legslature and the Executive branch have attacked privacy with diligence. This seems heavy with irony yet this train is picking up steam.

Privacy is an inherent thread of this country. For freedom without privacy is gimmickry and outright fallacy.

 

[Minkey Boodle]

But, it's "for our own protection," right?

 

[modest mouse]

But, it's "for our own protection," right?

Good point. We couldn't find our own way in this world. lemme consult the church.

 

[JazzManJim]

I doubt I am any more educated than you are and if so certainly not substantially so. Not meaningfully so.

But yes, Jim, Republicans are who I shall pin privacy issues on. The people I deal with daily who have truly backward views on privacy (and other things) are almost entirely Republicans. On a national scale I do think its safe to say that Republicans in the Legslature and the Executive branch have attacked privacy with diligence. This seems heavy with irony yet this train is picking up steam.

Privacy is an inherent thread of this country. For freedom without privacy is gimmickry and outright fallacy.

But you sidestep the whole ECHELON thing that wasn't a Republican-controlled project. I'm not sure how you do that.

I'd dispute that privacy is an inherent thread of the country. The Constitution has relatively little to say about privacy, in general or the specific. It does say that the government can't stop you from doing a lot of things, but it doesn't say that the government can't monitor what's floating around in the air.

That said, I do agree that privacy and freedom are intermingled. I am worried that we allow our government so much freedom to collect pretty much what it wishes, without limit. But so long as we're living with the overall philosophy that government is the panacaea to our problems, no matter what they are, intrusions into privacy are going to be a fact of life. You don't get the helping hand of the government without the intrusive peeping hand of the government.

 

[TWB]

And with Democrat rule we get to keep a whole 40% of our check with the rest going to people sitting on their ass watching infomercials and Judge Judy.

Have you noticed that hasn't changed much? To the extent it has changed, have you noticed the deficit balooning to pay to reduce it?

Republicans are bigger spenders than Democrats ever were. Wake up.

 

[TWB]

But you sidestep the whole ECHELON thing that wasn't a Republican-controlled project. I'm not sure how you do that.

I'd dispute that privacy is an inherent thread of the country. The Constitution has relatively little to say about privacy, in general or the specific. It does say that the government can't stop you from doing a lot of things, but it doesn't say that the government can't monitor what's floating around in the air.

That said, I do agree that privacy and freedom are intermingled. I am worried that we allow our government so much freedom to collect pretty much what it wishes, without limit. But so long as we're living with the overall philosophy that government is the panacaea to our problems, no matter what they are, intrusions into privacy are going to be a fact of life. You don't get the helping hand of the government without the intrusive peeping hand of the government.

You don't think privacy is an inherent thread of the country?

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?

The framers were clearly not restricting inalienable rights protected by the consitution to the words in the articles. If they were, what was the purpose of the 9th amendment, which reads simply: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[JazzManJim]

Well, they key phrase there is "retained by the people". The Founders clearly believed that privacy was important, but left it to the people to decide what level of privacy they wished. We have an amendment process and democratic elections for that purpose. If we wish to place something outside the reach of the government explicitly, then we may do so. That we've not done so as often as we have tells me that perhaps privacy isn't the American Shibboleth that a lot of folks make it out to be.

 

[TWB]

Well, they key phrase there is "retained by the people". The Founders clearly believed that privacy was important, but left it to the people to decide what level of privacy they wished. We have an amendment process and democratic elections for that purpose. If we wish to place something outside the reach of the government explicitly, then we may do so. That we've not done so as often as we have tells me that perhaps privacy isn't the American Shibboleth that a lot of folks make it out to be.

Retained by the people means that the government cannot intrude upon those basic rights.

 

[JazzManJim]

Retained by the people means that the government cannot intrude upon those basic rights.

Retained is an action word, TWB. It's not passive..rights just don't sit there. They never have.

Government can not intrude on rights the people have retained by using the mechanisms for retention outlined in the Constitution. That was pretty much the point of writing the document.

Still, I don't see the loss of privacy as a Republican or Democratic issue. I see it as a government issue and so long as our Federal government is as involved in our everyday lives as it is, by our own demands, we're going to have precious little privacy.

 

[miles]

If your privacy has recently been violated, please raise your hand.

 

[TWB]

Retained is an action word, TWB. It's not passive..rights just don't sit there. They never have.

Government can not intrude on rights the people have retained by using the mechanisms for retention outlined in the Constitution. That was pretty much the point of writing the document.

Still, I don't see the loss of privacy as a Republican or Democratic issue. I see it as a government issue and so long as our Federal government is as involved in our everyday lives as it is, by our own demands, we're going to have precious little privacy.

The whole point of the 9th amendment was the framers were worried that if they listed some rights, and left others out, those ones they left out would be excluded by that omission. This is a general principle of statutory construction: if it doesnt specifically say it, the legislature must have meant to exclude it.

The whole point of the 9th amendment was to say that the framers did NOT want the constitution interpreted that way. They essentially said: "Hey, just cuz it we couldn't right all of the inalienable rights we have in this document, doesnt mean they are not inalienable rights. There are some inalienable rights that the bill of rights still protects, regardless of whether we thought to include it or not."

The right to privacy was one of those rights that the government cannot trod upon. That is what it means.

Coming around to the issue of Repubs v. Dems and their view on privacy, I think this is one of those areas where there is a difference, but it is not as big as some would like to make it. I think generally this administration, the Reagan administration, and the Nixon administration were all very agressive at consolodating presidential power. This and the Nixon administration were (are)extremely secretive, which I find very dangerous.

I think this president has broken the law. I think Clinton may have broken it too.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Alot of power corrupts alot.

 

[TWB]

If your privacy has recently been violated, please raise your hand.

You may never know what I know about you.

 

[JazzManJim]

The whole point of the 9th amendment was the framers were worried that if they listed some rights, and left others out, those ones they left out would be excluded by that omission. This is a general principle of statutory construction: if it doesnt specifically say it, the legislature must have meant to exclude it.

The whole point of the 9th amendment was to say that the framers did NOT want the constitution interpreted that way. They essentially said: "Hey, just cuz it we couldn't right all of the inalienable rights we have in this document, doesnt mean they are not inalienable rights. There are some inalienable rights that the bill of rights still protects, regardless of whether we thought to include it or not."

The right to privacy was one of those rights that the government cannot trod upon. That is what it means.

Coming around to the issue of Repubs v. Dems and their view on privacy, I think this is one of those areas where there is a difference, but it is not as big as some would like to make it. I think generally this administration, the Reagan administration, and the Nixon administration were all very agressive at consolodating presidential power. This and the Nixon administration were (are)extremely secretive, which I find very dangerous.

I think this president has broken the law. I think Clinton may have broken it too.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Alot of power corrupts alot.

I think you're not quite getting the meaning of "inalienable" right, though.

I agree with you to a point. The 9th Amendment was written to say "Hey, these other 8 amendments aren't the only rights the people have. There are others the people have. Watch this space for more". What it wasn't was a blanket "everything's private" decree. There's no way you can read what the Founders wrote in volumes, and the way they conducted the business of the infant government and come to that conclusion.

The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was not just to enshrine certain things as right but also to seed the minds of the people with the concept that they could make as many things "rights" as they wished by following the blueprint for doing so in the Constitution itself. Mind you, the Bill of Rights wasn't empowered by Founding Father Fiat. Each Amendment was voted upon according to the rules. In the same fashion, other rights could be so enshrined by following the same rules.

Don't you think that it's odd that nowhere in the Constitution do you find the phrase "inalienable rights"? I believe that's because there's a vast difference between an ideological statement like the Declaration of Independence and a governing document like the Constitution. It's one thing to say we have sweeping inalienable rights, but nothing is, as a matter of law, inalienable. Hell, we could repeal any amendment we wanted at any time.

 

[TWB]

I think you're not quite getting the meaning of "inalienable" right, though.

I agree with you to a point. The 9th Amendment was written to say "Hey, these other 8 amendments aren't the only rights the people have. There are others the people have. Watch this space for more". What it wasn't was a blanket "everything's private" decree. There's no way you can read what the Founders wrote in volumes, and the way they conducted the business of the infant government and come to that conclusion.

The whole idea of the Bill of Rights was not just to enshrine certain things as right but also to seed the minds of the people with the concept that they could make as many things "rights" as they wished by following the blueprint for doing so in the Constitution itself. Mind you, the Bill of Rights wasn't empowered by Founding Father Fiat. Each Amendment was voted upon according to the rules. In the same fashion, other rights could be so enshrined by following the same rules.

Don't you think that it's odd that nowhere in the Constitution do you find the phrase "inalienable rights"? I believe that's because there's a vast difference between an ideological statement like the Declaration of Independence and a governing document like the Constitution. It's one thing to say we have sweeping inalienable rights, but nothing is, as a matter of law, inalienable. Hell, we could repeal any amendment we wanted at any time.

No, if they meant to say "watch this space for more," the 9th amendment would not have been needed at all. This is explained over and over in my posts above and do not bear repeating. I disagree with your interpretation, and so does the Supreme Court.

As far as inalienable rights, I used that term to indicate that the forefathers thought some rights were just basic rights you have as a human in a free country. It was my terminology to make the point. Kinda like George Bush does when he is talking about democracy in Iraq.

 

[Gringao]

TWB, I stand in amazement at your misconstruction of Federalist 84.