Clerance Thomas thinks rights to privacy is not in the constitution?

[Pepsei]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=2&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy[/L[/L]

"Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he could not agree to strike it down because he found no general right to privacy in the Constitution. "



I'm suprised.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=2&u=/ap/20030626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_sodomy[/L[/L]

"Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he could not agree to strike it down because he found no general right to privacy in the Constitution. "<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://


I'm suprised. ">link</a>

"Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he could not agree to strike it down because he found no general right to privacy in the Constitution. "[L=link]


I'm suprised.

I would be curious to see the entire opinion on this.

"Thomas wrote separately to say that while he considered the Texas law at issue "uncommonly silly," he could not agree to strike it down because he found no general right to privacy in the Constitution. "[L=link]


I'm suprised.[/quote]

I would be curious to see the entire opinion on this.

 

[LunarRay]

The link did not work for me... but here is a good one for this and future reference..

findlaw

 

[Zebo]

It does'nt get much more clear than 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.

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

 

[Vadatajs]

There is no explicitly stated right to privacy in the constitution. Read it sometime. The closest thing is the 4th ammendment, and section 1 of the 14th, which would require a reference to the vague language of the 4th to be interprited.


That said, there should be.

 

[tnitsuj]

Clarence Thomas is an ultra strict constructionist. If it isn't actually literally spelled out in the actual words of the Constitution he doesn't care for it. He is also IMHO one of the most worthless Supreme Court justices ever. Ever read his book? It is basically a big long whiney rant.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It does'nt get much more clear than 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.

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

He's an idiot alright...

The fourth is as stated above, however, if a police man observes a crime being committed or if there exists or the officer believes an exigent circumstance exists the officer may enter without warrant to arrest or render assistance etc.. there is also a 4th ammend. waiver for felons and such. Evidence so garnered (in clear sight) is admissible.This Clerance Thomas, is not explicit either.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It does'nt get much more clear than 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.

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

That's less about privacy and more about illegal searches and seizures. Searches/seizures don't neccessarily equate to privacy; they are only analogous in contexts in which one party is a government/police figure.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Zebo
It does'nt get much more clear than 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.

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

This is not a right of privacy. It is simply, as stated, a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. In this case the police had a reasonable right to enter the premises (even though it was based on a false report). This real issue here is whether Texas has a right to legislate (under the premise of protection of society) against specific, non-public, gay acts. I think Thomas was wrong on this one but not nearly as wrong as Scalia. Thomas was correct that there is no "right to privacy" but I think he should have went on to examine this from the aspects of limitations of government power. A "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" approach.

I know the political long knives are out for Thomas but it seems to me he alone, of the three dissenters, made a viable case for his dissent.

 

[tcsenter]

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

lol! Zebo doesn't even read his own citations.

I'm looking...and looking...and see no instance of the word "privacy" in the 4th Amendment. I also see many specific rights protected in the 4th amendment (secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures), but no "general" rights expressed nor protected.

To say that Clarence Thomas is an idiot for asserting what any first year law student would recognize to be a general truth is itself a marvel of not only idiocy but complete ignorance of what the 4th Amendment says and means.

Maybe Engrish isn't Zebo's first or second language. Him read but no understandee.

So I'll cut him some slack.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Zebo
It does'nt get much more clear than 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.

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

That's less about privacy and more about illegal searches and seizures. Searches/seizures don't neccessarily equate to privacy; they are only analogous in contexts in which one party is a government/police figure.

What do you think searches means and to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects?

If they can't search for something and have no right to see it without courts approval, then it's private since you only have the right to your persons, houses, papers, and effects. This is your right to privacy.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

lol! Zebo doesn't even read his own citations.

I'm looking...and looking...and see no instance of the word "privacy" in the 4th Amendment. I also see many specific rights protected in the 4th amendment (secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures), but no "general" rights expressed nor protected.

To say that Clarence Thomas is an idiot for asserting what any first year law student would recognize to be a general truth is itself a marvel of not only idiocy but complete ignorance of what the 4th Amendment says and means.

Maybe Engrish isn't Zebo's first or second language. Him read but no understandee.

So I'll cut him some slack.

Here's a few links stating the fourth amendment gives us right to privacy. Who does'nt understand engrish? appears you don't..
http://www.njsbf.org/njsbf/student/eagle/winter00-1.cfm
http://beechstreetlaw.lawoffice.com/articles3.htm
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect04.htm

155,555 hits when typing into google fourth amendment and right to privacy....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The man was an idiot then and is still an idiot. A purly political appointment, after they dragged Robert Bork though the mud.

lol! Zebo doesn't even read his own citations.

I'm looking...and looking...and see no instance of the word "privacy" in the 4th Amendment. I also see many specific rights protected in the 4th amendment (secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures), but no "general" rights expressed nor protected.

To say that Clarence Thomas is an idiot for asserting what any first year law student would recognize to be a general truth is itself a marvel of not only idiocy but complete ignorance of what the 4th Amendment says and means.

Maybe Engrish isn't Zebo's first or second language. Him read but no understandee.

So I'll cut him some slack.

Annotation to the fourth... in part: "The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may ''justifiably'' rely. ''What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'' That is, the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.''

Now, Although I think the 14th as alluded to in the opinion of the majority covers the issue, I thought this somewhat compelling, not in this case but, in general... and even though the 4th requires a search and seizure... they did seize his corpus..

 

[tcsenter]

What do you think searches means and to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects?

It means exactly what it says and nothing more, you have a right be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

If they can't search for something and have no right to see it without courts approval, then it's private since you only have the right to your persons, houses, papers, and effects. This is your right to privacy.

What's this have to do with a law that has nothing to do whatsoever with law enforcement coming into your home without a warrant?

Here's a few links stating the fourth amendment gives us right to privacy. Who does'nt understand engrish? appears you don't..

Well you can find a lot of lawyers who argue that when the founders wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", they made a mistake and meant that the government has the right to keep and bear arms, not the people, even though everywhere else in the Bill of Rights, when the founders meant 'the people' they wrote 'the people', and when they meant the state they wrote 'the state'.

I'm not interested in what some lawyer's incorrect interpretation of the 4th Amendment, no more than his incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm interested in what you think you know about the 4th Amendment.

 

[Zebo]

Read the posts.

 

[tcsenter]

Read the posts.

Ahhh, so in reality, you are totally unable to provide your own defense here because you haven't a clue what you're talking about - you've never actually scrutinized the history and drafting of the 4th Amendment. You're just 'trusting' what someone else says the 4th Amendment means, but only certain 'someone elses' who espouse the interpretation you find agreeable, not necessarily 'correct' or 'accurate', but 'agreeable', because you don't really have the first inkling yourself.

Ok, I got it. Well you should have just said so.

 

[Zebo]

And no interpretaion is required just read it.

pri·va·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prv-s)
n.

The quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.
The state of being concealed; secrecy.
-------------------------------------------
The fourth amendment

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.

Almost identical language except the const. lists the items.

 

[LunarRay]

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court through 'stare decisis' and new opinion say's it means... The annotations to it are what they have opined over time. I find words like 'privacy' used through out.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: HJD1
The Constitution means what the Supreme Court through 'stare decisis' and new opinion say's it means... The annotations to it are what they have opined over time. I find words like 'privacy' used through out.

Yup unforunatly it does'nt mean much anymore. Some groups like ACLU and NRA are still trying to hold on but ulntimatly it's a loosing battle because of so called interpretation. Blue is green and green is black and Search does'nt mean view.

 

[Zebo]

NM

 

[jackschmittusa]

The government has no moral authority to condemn the actions of consenting adults without showing demonstarable harm to the participants or to other persons in legal proximity. Homosexual acts (among many other things) by consenting adults in private cannot be shown to be harmful and therefore should not be under the pervue of the government.

 

[tcsenter]

Almost identical language except the const. lists the items.

I'm certainly glad you posted the definition of privacy, which lists among the meanings:

The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but a law passed by the people through their elected representatives authorizing some kind of intrusion is most certainly "a sanctioned" intrusion, is it not? You know, like if I attempt to imprison someone in my basement, that is an 'unsanctioned' imprisonment or detainment (ergo: unlawful), but when the government does it, it is a "sanctioned" imprisonment or detention (ergo: lawful).

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any right of 'privacy' implied in the 4th Amendment is not a general one. The 4th Amendment does not say 'the government shall not concern itself at all with any of the going-ons within people's homes and personal matters'. That would strongly imply or confer a general right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment is very specific, and expressly forbids the government to intrude upon people's homes and their persons for the purpose of searching and seizing articles (including contraband) or persons (including those wanted by or fleeing justice) without good cause, the latter part of the 4th Amendment then describes what burdens the government must meet in order to lift this prohibition and make any intrusion 'reasonable' (a warrant, issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized).

So now we come to the crux of the issue: which state has actively been attempting to 'catch' people violating the sodomy laws in the privacy of their home?

To my knowledge, this case stemmed from an incidental discovery of a violation by law enforcement officers who entered the home, not to catch sodomites, but pursuant to exigent circumstances. Where is the "unreasonable search and seizure"?

Are you saying that if law enforcement officers enter a home due to legitimate exigent circumstances and incidentally discover a meth lab, the state cannot then make arrests and prosecute anyone for operating a meth lab in the 'privacy' of their own home?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Almost identical language except the const. lists the items.

I'm certainly glad you posted the definition of privacy, which lists among the meanings:

The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy.

Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but a law passed by the people through their elected representatives authorizing some kind of intrusion is most certainly "a sanctioned" intrusion, is it not? You know, like if I attempt to imprison someone in my basement, that is an 'unsanctioned' imprisonment or detainment (ergo: unlawful), but when the government does it, it is a "sanctioned" imprisonment or detention (ergo: lawful).

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any right of 'privacy' implied in the 4th Amendment is not a general one. The 4th Amendment does not say 'the government shall not concern itself at all with any of the going-ons within people's homes and personal matters'. That would strongly imply or confer a general right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment is very specific, and expressly forbids the government to intrude upon people's homes and their persons for the purpose of searching and seizing articles (including contraband) or persons (including those wanted by or fleeing justice) without good cause, the latter part of the 4th Amendment then describes what burdens the government must meet in order to lift this prohibition and make any intrusion 'reasonable' (a warrant, issued upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized).

So now we come to the crux of the issue: which state has actively been attempting to 'catch' people violating the sodomy laws in the privacy of their home?

To my knowledge, this case stemmed from an incidental discovery of a violation by law enforcement officers who entered the home, not to catch sodomites, but pursuant to exigent circumstances. Where is the "unreasonable search and seizure"?

Are you saying that if law enforcement officers enter a home due to legitimate exigent circumstances and incidentally discover a meth lab, the state cannot then make arrests and prosecute anyone for operating a meth lab in the 'privacy' of their own home?

The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion:

The sanctioning of a search is done by the same amendment "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" this is the sanction. Once the officer has that warrant he is then sanctioned to "search and seize". And "probable cause" is what the legislators are for. To deterime what laws are illegal such as murder rape etc.. This insures a third party (usually a judge) is in agreement and feels it jives with the oath or affirmation the officers, witnesses or district attoneys office is alleging violates the law in question. You are making the mistake of thinking the legislatures laws can superceed the unsanctioned intusion the consititution guarantees. No one can (or should) search or seize anything concerning you without a) probable cause/laws b) warrant/sanctioned.

I think until the 80's this (meth example) was the case due to the phrase "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". And I ceratinly do believe it should be the case or else a cop could come to every household to "discuss" a nieghborhood watch program (or anything), when in reality it's to do house to house searches for any potential wrong doing.

 

[tcsenter]

The sanctioning of a search is done by the same amendment "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" this is the sanction. Once the officer has that warrant he is then sanctioned to "search and seize".

Great, it appears you have a good handle on the purpose and intent of the 4th amendment.

Now, how does an anti-sodomy law violate the 4th Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures", provided that the statute does not direct the government (law enforcement) to go peeking into people's windows or hiding in their bushes or entering their homes trying to catch people violating anti-sodomy laws?

Again, exigent circumstances exempting the government from obtaining a warrant is already a well-settled and virtually uncontested principle of law. If someone reports that they heard gun shots and screams coming from inside your home, the police are coming in - warrant or not - and that is a legitimate exigent circumstance.

If while they are there, they happen incidentally to discover a meth lab, they just have to let you continue producing meth in the 'privacy' of your home?

 

[Tom]

"Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but a law passed by the people through their elected representatives authorizing some kind of intrusion is most certainly "a sanctioned" intrusion, is it not?"


HELLO ! The people can't pass a law that violates the Constitiution. A law as you describe would therefore not be "sanctioned", it would not be a valid law.

And it's common sense, apart from the legal descriptions, that freedom from unreasonable searches is just another way of saying a right to privacy.

Not to mention that the philosophy of strict constructionist is nonsense. As pointed out there isn't any such thing, Thomas and Scalia are as ready as any other member to legislate from the bench if it suits their ideology.

Where is the procedure that led to the election/appointment of George W Bush, specifically written in the Constitution ?