-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Mass of an ass going critical
- Thread starter Gry
- Start date
Another question for those yelling muh privacy, can somebody please explain how the 4th ‘protects muh privacy’ yet most continue to use fakebook twatter and giggle? FB has been caught numberous times ‘leaking’ personal information, giggle has been caught SELLING personal information and twatter has been caught storing all activities including EVERY DM. As a matter of fact has admitted to whole departments who review said messages including CP? Yet no outrage with that, but tell a whore she can’t abort a child and the outrage is palpable? And on the note or twatter, can the left REALLY accept the censorship of the right? Or are you so blinded by partisanship this doesn’t matter? Careful with the censorship you wish for
a little context, say the interpretation of the 2nd amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
militia is part of the wording
but not part of the current interpretation
was that effectively legislation also?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
militia is part of the wording
but not part of the current interpretation
was that effectively legislation also?
Brother Nature
Well-known member
Its called a Terms and Conditions agreement, which anyone who uses those platforms has to agree to. In layman terms it's called signing your rights away.
Fully understand TOS. Still don’t understand why people consent to this yet are outraged when government tells whores you can’t abort decisions
Yet no outrage of storing CP on private servers? So as long as big media does it it’s ok?
I guess I don’t understand the question being asked. Yes, the word militia is VITAL to the second amendment
not a question, just an observation that there are interpretations of the amendments which don't suit everyone
such as the 4th amendment
The militia was considered to be EVERY male of military age (17-45), and not members of a formal military organization. And the "well regulated" part meant functioning well, as in antique clocks being called "Regulators".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
Guess I do not see anyway for either to be construed. If adding words to the 4th, sure one can bend it any which way. But the writing clearly states what is needed for legal search and seizure. But NOTHING about privacy. States the government cannot search or seize without probable cause, a warrant signed by a judge that explicitly state who/ where can be searched and what is being looked for. NOTHING about privacy.
White Beard
Active member
Also the Ninth Amendment, which has consistently been waved away by SCOTUS since inception.
The Ninth says ‘the enumeration of certain rights in this document shall not be construed to disparage or deny other rights retained by the people’. The right of bodily autonomy reflected in Roe v Wade is the only case I know of in which the assertion of a non-enumerated right been recognized and granted status.
Do we own ourselves, or don’t we?
If we do, then Roe v Wade matters.
And if there IS no right to privacy then the Fourth Amendment is meaningless except as a dance of permissions.
The Ninth says ‘the enumeration of certain rights in this document shall not be construed to disparage or deny other rights retained by the people’. The right of bodily autonomy reflected in Roe v Wade is the only case I know of in which the assertion of a non-enumerated right been recognized and granted status.
Do we own ourselves, or don’t we?
If we do, then Roe v Wade matters.
And if there IS no right to privacy then the Fourth Amendment is meaningless except as a dance of permissions.
Brother Nature
Well-known member
How is protection from the government illegally searching, seizing your property, or a bogus warrant issued for your arrest meaningless?
If there is no right to privacy explain tort law.
How would libel or slander be prosecuted?
Why are people with such a loose grip on the very foundations of our country suggesting I learn the law?
If you truly feel there is no right to privacy be glad the law does.
Probable cause can't be gained if there is "an expectation of privacy".
I am thankful the constitution still works whether people acknowledge it or not.
How would libel or slander be prosecuted?
Why are people with such a loose grip on the very foundations of our country suggesting I learn the law?
If you truly feel there is no right to privacy be glad the law does.
Probable cause can't be gained if there is "an expectation of privacy".
I am thankful the constitution still works whether people acknowledge it or not.
The "right to privacy" was first recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. Tort law, libel, and slander predate it considerably - like prior to the American Revolution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy
White Beard
Active member
It’s only a protection as long as citizens value it. The Fourth rests on the presumption of a right to privacy on one’s property and within one’s natural areas of control, it is spelled out inclusively (“papers and effects”, generally known as personal items), not explicitly. If it did not rest on such a foundation, then there would be no reason for the government to take specific steps to avoid violating it. Probable cause and rules of evidence and chains of custody all descend from slicing and dicing the microlimitations of privacy, and what is and is not an invasion.
Robert Bork suffered the same vision problem when reading the constitution....
Yes the government cannot SEARCH OR TAKE those items. Has NOTHING to do with privacy. That’s where the mental gymnastics are strong. Privacy has NOTHING to do with the 4th. That’s like saying dildos are protected under the second amendment.... has NOTHING to do with it. Bend shit anyway you want, but just because it fits your feelings doesn’t matter at all
Rubbish.
Considering that the "right to privacy" wasn't enumerated for another 200 years after the Bill of Rights was written, I would say that the 4th Amendment was more closely related the 5th -the preclusion from incriminating oneself.
"Amendments 3, 4, & 5 of the US Constitution form a natural set. These amendments form a very clear joint statement of the importance the Framers set on the protection and sanctity of private property."
https://www.constitutiondecoded.com/us-constitution-3rd-4th-5th-amendments.html
*edit* to use the above link, drop the "s" off of the end of "https". This site appears to be adding it to the link, and it doesn't function with it on there.
.
Last edited:
White Beard
Active member
I understand your points, gentlemen, and for sure I understand you don’t see it as I see it...but simply saying “nuh-uh!” carries no weight. Do you have reason against my point of view on this? Do you have an argument to present? Do you have evidence?
Ummmm..... you mean like the above statement and link?
Certainly some level of privacy protection can be inferred from the amendments. However, the overt intent was obviously to protect the new citizens of the US from the abuses that they had previously suffered under British rule, or that other governments had imposed on their citizens. The Founders were a group of very bright and very articulate men. It seems highly unlikely to me that they would have struggled to find the word "privacy" if that was what they intended, and that they would have torturously connected that evasive word to such things as abortion rights.
There is an endless stream of "would've, could've, should've" games that could be played with "interpreting" the Constitution to attach whatever meaning one wants to it. Or, of course, we could simply follow the document with some allowances for changes in verbiage over time.
Invasion of privacy wouldn't be prosecuted if there were no right to privacy.
Slander and libel would be free speech if there were no right to privacy.
As it stands now we have a right to privacy.....
Whether or not admitting it hurts.
If you're convinced it's not the reason the fourth amendment was written you probably don't want us to have a right to privacy.
Tough shit.
Slander and libel would be free speech if there were no right to privacy.
As it stands now we have a right to privacy.....
Whether or not admitting it hurts.
If you're convinced it's not the reason the fourth amendment was written you probably don't want us to have a right to privacy.
Tough shit.
