Privacy

P

Peanut Queen

New member
Then I guess that is a big no and that people do not have an right to privacy. I guess the government can just continue to spy into peoples homes, tell us who we can have sex with, and tell us what we can do with our bodies; how mean
 
[half-sarcasm] but what about the second amendment? Shouldn't we have the right to make bombs as long as we don't use them in any way other than defense?[/sarcasm]

But seriously, growing weed shouldn't be a crime or any other drug. If someone wants to do whatever they want to their own bodies, they should be able to. But I know you disagree with that.

WOW. You think that state governments should ban gay sex? If 2 consenting adults want to do it, who are you to stop them? Obviously in the Constitution, it is left up to the states, but if this amendment were passed it would not be left up to the states anymore. Prostitution is the same. Of course while we're on the issue of the Constitution, where does the federal government get the Constitutional authority to institute marriage at all?



That's your opinion, that's better left up to debate somewhere else.




I agree sort of. We shouldn't give a blanket right to privacy, but the part about allowing 2 consenting adults to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (even if it's pulling out each other's hair or stabbing each other) I agree with.
 
Would you support an amendment to the US constitution that spelled out privacy rights. Some thing like this but not Necessarily this wording.


Proposed constitutional amendment
The privacy amendment,


Section 1
The people’s right to privacy shall not be infringed upon, whether in the privacy of their homes, work environment, personal effects, papers, or electronic transfers or writings of any kind. Congress, the states, or local authority, whether public or private, shall make no law infringing or abridging the people’s right to privacy.

Section 2
The people have the right to sexual freedom between consenting adults of either sex. The people have the right to have sexual intercourse of any kind between consenting adults of either sex.
No state, congress, or local authority shall make any law infringing or abridging the people’s right to sexual relations between consenting adults of either sex.

Section3
The people have the right to control their own bodies and make choices about organs, their own deaths, and anything within the confines of the body. Congress, the states, and local authorities shall make no law infringing or abridging the people’s right to control their own bodies.
 
That is more or less what happened here in Kansas back in April. I understand there is a difference in "Gay marriage" & "Gay Sex" but it's the same general idea. Just for the record, the amendment that a good (and stupid) number of voters voted Yes to ban gay marriage also banned "Common Law Marriage." This even includes straight marraiges that were never put together by a preacher or judge but what is granted to them by default after 7 or so years. This means that their marriages no longer count and all the children concieved in those marriages have become "basterd children."

I know that that may sound a bit extreame but that is the general idea.
 
Any proposed section will have closed mind belief system advocates foaming at the mouth. As a full amendment, they'd show their brotherly love with attention well-known during the Inquisition.
 
I think that the state has the authorityto ban gay sex or straight sex for that matter. If they amendment did pass it would obviously not be up to the states...however, I am not a big fan of a large federal government so I think it should remain up to the states. There are too many cultures in the US to make the federal government have the ability to decide things like that.

Wasn't the question about the amendment? The amendment dealt with abortion and I think it is wrong so obviously I wouldn't support that.

I suppose driving while drunk is not hurting anyone until they smash their car into someone. The point is that if people do stuff own their own time, it still might hurt others in some way. If people are doing herion all the time we will probably have to start more government funded rehab centers and we gotta pay police etc to scrap you off the floor when you OD. Legalizing drugs sounRAB good on paper...but in the end it just makes for a crappy society. Weed would probably be tolerable if all the countries legalized it at the same time...that way we don't have a flood of drugies coming into the US.
 
Jp and Bassman are you saying that the idea of a privacy amendment is a bad idea? Or do you believe that we are not intitled to have privacy constitutionally protected? Or is it just my wording? If so what about comming up with some wording for a privacy amendment.

I have heard conservatives say over and over that there is no right to privacy in the consititution. This is the basis of attack on the judiciary and the conservative cry against so called activist judges. Why not spell out privacy rights once and for all?
 
Personally, I don't know why I should care what others are doing in the privacy of their own home if it's not hurting anyone. But let me take each section seperately.
First, read my very first sentence to my post on this.
Second, the problem would be that this is the complete turn around of the stupid patriot act, how I understand it. I was against it myself as you can tell from my wording. So whether or not I care what goes on in the privacy of some ones home, there are too many people who are paronoid about what private citizens are doing.
However, if this included the right to privacy for movie celebrites and the like, I would filibuster this until the apocalypse. They would pass it just to get me to shut up.
Guess what, I'm from Kansas and I don't have any personal problems with this. This mostly comments on the last sentence. Now upon who they have sex with, would that refer to one-night stanRAB, a couple sure they equally want to get married, or already married couples. This is my religious point of view: Once you do it, you're marred in God's eyes. That and my human point of view thinks there could be a bit more responsibilty than to have a one-night stand sort of relationship. Or am I reading this wrong and it's just (only, no other way around it but worded a bit more openly about it) refering to couples in a homosexual relationship? If that's the case (and the only case) then I will just say that I would not want to be the one infringing on anyone's right. I don't know of any reason why I should care what the sexual preference of a person is and how they live their sex life I would say "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't really want to know." This is especially when it's between 2 consenting adults.
I think this would probibly need some rewording depending on what the point is. People already have the right to choices involving their organs. People have the right to smoke which can mess up your lungs (as well as others around them) and as long as they don't drive, they have the right to drink too much alcohol which can effect the liver and the brain and quite possibly other parts of the body. While someone who has something like parkingson desease can start figiting and have no controll over their body no matter what their rights are. This is why I wouldn't want to be a politician. To many documents with "in such a way" wording that will always wind up getting missinterpreted by someone later on. As of right now, I just don't like how this is worded.
 
Isn't it already legal in most Europian countries, or at least cities. Isn't Amsterdam already a big drug free city in the NetherlanRAB? From some of the thngs I've heard, most countries or cities at least are drug friendly in Europe. I'm not saying that all places in Europe are open to drug use but I know that some places allow it more. In some countries like Columbia in South America, Cocain is a cash-crop. But you don't hear of horRAB of people going to these places because of this. (Okay, maybe word of mouth but not on the news.) Legalization of drugs in the US probibly would not start a mass coming of people from other countries.
 
It does in Amsterdam. That city is literally just floating along :xclown: . People don't go down to Columbia because if you went to get cocaine they would more then likely just kill you. It is an illegal cash crop at best. Europe is not all that drug friendly anyway (and now would be a bad time to start bragging about how great Europe is). Really only marijuana is permitted. I don't know of any country that likes people shooting up.
 
But why? Do you not believe that we are intitled to privacy and those rights should be spelled out? Why is it not a good idea? I thought conservates wanted a literal translation of the constitution. My way is a win win the conservates get the constitution to say what liberals say it means now and liberals get the rights we have now through court rulings spelled out.
 
I voted for everything in the poll because I could...however, in real life I would vote against this poorly worded amendment.


The reason we have unreasonable search and seizure is to make it so we an invade someone in their private lies if the right set of circumstances arises. For example with this amenmdent you couldn't have phone taps. A police officer couldn't infringe upon anything going on in the "privacy of ones home" even if it were a murder. The law is badly worded in this way. The Bill of Rights does a good job of picking out certain situations that shouldn't be infringed upon but doesn't make a "blanket right" to anything...including privacy which is too broad.


there goes anything against prostitution. While not broad I wouldn't support this one based on my moral beliefs....which I might add is a perfectly valid reason to oppose something.

Another terrible amendment. The amendment directly violated any prinicpal of people not ranking other people. What is considered "confines of the body"? This could lead to some bad results.


So yeah, this amendment is total crap and I can't put it any other way.

Try having an amendment that actually represents the beliefs of the US. Try making one that doesn't rank humans either.
 
I was going based upon what I have heard. Things do change. But the cocaine is not really illegal in Columbia. It's just illegal if it's smuggled into a foreign country like the US. In studying Spanish, I've heard people from Columbia speak about it as something sprinkled into the tea and mixed in with their coffee. It's basically like what sugar is to us. And I wasn't bragging about Europe. I've never even been to Europe. I've hardly even been outside of the state of Kansas. I was merely commenting on what I have read or heard from various sources.
 
Let me clear this up a bit

Section 1
Deals with the right to be left alone in your home and personal life. If it goes on in the comfines of your home it is none of anyones busisness.

Section 2
Deals with Gay sex and laws amied at curtailing any kind of sex between consenting adults. This would include prostitution, and any kind of sex between consenting adults.
( My morals support sexual activity of any kind between consenting adults. That is a very good reason to support an issue. See I believe that we have the right to have sex any where, whenever, and with whomever we choose of the proper age)


Section 3
Deals with abortion and the right to die (assisted suicide).
 
I'm assuming that 1 and 2 both deals with no one being hurt and everyone is safe. In other worRAB, if a person is trapped in their own home by a psychopath and they are not consenting to that, then should no one bother to help? Helping would be an invasion of privacy within one's own home.
One question about section 3: Is that really a privacy issue? Isn't it more of a life issue? Okay fine, that's 2 questions but they go together.
 
Back
Top