• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll- Constitutional amendment. Right to Privacy.

Originally posted by: palehorse74
define "information" please.
Click to expand...

No.
My reasoning is similiar to the Georgia representitive at the Constitutional Convention when he opposed the Bill of Rights:
"If we spell out specific rights than at some point in the future some dang fool is going to say that we have ONLY those rights"

And the names of those "dang fools" all start with "neo-conservative".
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
define "information" please.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "in-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3 : the act of informing against a person
4 : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
- in·for·ma·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- in·for·ma·tion·al·ly adverb
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: palehorse74
define "information" please.
Click to expand...

No.
My reasoning is similiar to the Georgia representitive at the Constitutional Convention when he opposed the Bill of Rights:
"If we spell out specific rights than at some point in the future some dang fool is going to say that we have ONLY those rights"

And the names of those "dang fools" all start with "neo-conservative".
Click to expand...

Well actually you could spell out a few and then say . . . future sycophants in the mold of Scalia and Thomas should interpret this Amendment liberally while the powers of the government should be interpreted conservatively.
 
the problem is that the word "information" is TOO ambiguous. The challenge that our forefathers faced when writing and approving the Constitution and Bill of Rights was that they needed it to cover all of the basic rights without being TOO ambiguous.

So, in order to vote "Yay" or "nay" on this issue, I, like they, would need to see the entire Amendment to ensure that it wasn't purposely left TOO ambiguous, thus leaving the government impotent when gathering "information" really is necessary.

examples: will federal or local law enforcement require a warrent to ask for your ID in public? After all, that could be deemed "information." Or how about if/when they ask for your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance during a traffic stop? Will that then fall under the new vague types of "information," thus requiring a warrant as well?

leaving the Amendment too ambiguous would either a) make it ineffective, or b) make it TOO effective.

understand where i'm coming from? Some would say that the Bill of Rights is sufficient enough already to cover privacy. (im one of them)
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
the problem is that the word "information" is TOO ambiguous. The challenge that our forefathers faced when writing and approving the Constitution and Bill of Rights was that they needed it to cover all of the basic rights without being TOO ambiguous.

So, in order to vote "Yay" or "nay" on this issue, I, like they, would need to see the entire Amendment to ensure that it wasn't purposely left TOO ambiguous, thus leaving the government impotent when gathering "information" really is necessary.

examples: will federal or local law enforcement require a warrent to ask for your ID in public? After all, that could be deemed "information." Or how about if/when they ask for your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance during a traffic stop? Will that then fall under the new vague types of "information," thus requiring a warrant as well?

leaving the Amendment too ambiguous would either a) make it ineffective, or b) make it TOO effective.

understand where i'm coming from? Some would say that the Bill of Rights is sufficient enough already to cover privacy. (im one of them)
Click to expand...
Its not.
Not with Judges like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.

 
We already have it with our right to liberty. We're just too disorganized and pussyized to fight for it.
 
Wow, think of the massive increase in the court loads. Heck, every other American would have to be a paid governement judge just to cover the extra work.

Want a driver's license? Too bad, the government first needs to file court papers and wait for a judgement in order to ask your name for the license.

Want your tax return? Too bad, we first need a court order.

Repeat with everything in your life.
 
The government may not request, order or require any information on its citizens without showing cause in a court of law.
Click to expand...
So the government goes to court and says, "We want libraries to turn over all their records on what books they've been lending, and to whom." And the judge says, "Show me cause." And the government replies, "We think there are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers (or potential sexual predators, dope dealers, pimps, or pornographers) somewhere in the U.S., and knowing the reading habits of everyone will increase our ability to detect these bad people by .00000001%."

You realize that "showing cause" is an incredibly weak standard, don't you? Perhaps you meant to write, "showing probable cause that a crime has been or is about to be committed by the target of the investigation."
 
An encompassing right to privacy seems like a no-brainer until you realize that in a world of interactions, it's not really practical. I think more specific privacies (like medical records, but for more things) would be a better way to go.
 
Isn't the consitution suppose to limit the federal government and the people have the rest of the "rights"? At least thats how I thought it worked...
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Isn't the consitution suppose to limit the federal government and the people have the rest of the "rights"? At least thats how I thought it worked...
Click to expand...
Not with a unitary executive. All hail King George.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
understand where i'm coming from?

Some would say that the Bill of Rights is sufficient enough already to cover privacy. (im one of them)
Click to expand...

Where are you coming from? The Oval Office?

Obviously you are wrong and it is not.
 
Again, most of you fail to recognize the distinction between de facto and de jure. Rights are something that you have, in fact. Whether someone (the Supreme Court) protects them is a matter of law.
 
In an ideal world, we, not the government, not the massive corps that compile the data, would own that data. And through ownership, we could have control, making it available and granting access on an as-needed basis. Instead, the courts and the government have taken possession of that data, which means in a way that they own you. No matter what your feeling on the subject, you have to wonder why we don't retain ownership of our own personal data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top