Now is the time - vote for Ron Paul.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Ghook The right to privacy was determined by case law, which determined that the right to privacy was in part of the prenumbras of the constitution.

In the case of privacy rights, kinda. The phrase the about being secure in one's own persons, possessions, etc pretty much spells out privacy without using the actual word.

It's like saying "I'm going to go use the contraption that circulates water to remove waste into the plumbing system" when referring to a toilet.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 In the case of privacy rights, kinda. The phrase the about being secure in one's own persons, possessions, etc pretty much spells out privacy without using the actual word. It's like saying "I'm going to go use the contraption that circulates water to remove waste into the plumbing system" when referring to a toilet.

This was a concept that my ConLaw teacher was specific on. I can't remember the case, but he specifically states that it wasn't stated in the constitution. The said it was in the prenumbras (shadows) or inference. 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. If it was contrued literally, then we would have no specifically protected constitutional right to privacy.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: 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.

It doesn't come out and say the right to privacy, but there's not a whole lot that segment can mean.

[Technosoul]

It means they cannot go fishing for evidence to arrest people.

It is sort of a no show no tell law, as long as you can keep it a secret then you will not get arrested. But if a cop sees something unlawful they cannot just turn away and pretend not to notice it, they must arrest who ever is keeping that unlawful item.

The right to pravacy is pretty much a thing of the past because warrents are easy to get and because of all the other laws which gives the police permission to search you. For example they can arrest you for anything and before you are put into a cell you must empty your pockets and be searched so nothing can be taken into the cell block, if you are "holding" then they can charge with that crime.

If you recycle cans do not put empty beer cans in your back seat where a cop can see them, you could get busted for an "open container" in your car (private property).

They can enter your house for any emergency without a warrent, once inside and they see something then they get a warrent and arrest the person who lives in the house.

The whole privacy "rights" has become a mumble jumble of technological interpretations of the lines that cops can cross or not cross.

And it is no longer a defense for you to know your rights, you must hire an expensive lawyer who can site court cases to a judge about the particulars involved - due to the confusion where that "line" is drawn concerning the right of privacy.

You internet files should be viewed the same as your private papers, but because they claim the internet is not private they can check it out.

[Technosoul]

This is why you should vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary because he knows that people have taken advantage of the fact that the rights of privacy are not clearly outlined in the Consitution, in order to eleminate them, such that they have become nearly on non-affect. And he might work to bring back a more secure version of those rights as they were originally respected in bye-gone days.

The good thing about Ron Paul is that he has a simple plateform to stand on. You do not have to think for your self or try to figure out how to solve problems because the Consitution has already done that for you. And if you cannot find it in the Consitution then it would be unconsitutional for the Federal Government to deal with it, unless a rare amendment was so adopted.

Using the Consitution as the law of the land he would simply limit what the Federal Government can do or get involved with, so that we do not have a single "one and only" central government trying to micro-manage everything under the sun.

The states would then be responsible to creating local laws and regulations in keeping with local problems or because of the will of local voters within that state, and as long as those states do not violate the basic rights of an individual or group as outlined in the Bill of Rights or the Consitution then the states can do what they wish without federal intervention, as each state has the power to raise taxes as they need them and with voter consent.

This works because any big business needs top of the line employees and those employees will flock to states that offer the best things for the employee families, such as schools, health care, good highways and bridges, entertainment locations, decent housing, and where criminal activites are under control by the local police or other plans. And where the air, water, and the environment is healthy. Thus, the more businesses and employees getting paid the better the state's economy and the more taxes they get locally to budget all those fore mentioned projects.

Them the got are them that get. Those are the simple economics as proposed by Billy Holiday.

Meanwhile the speical interest Lobby Groups would loose interest in the Federal Government (aka Congress) and they would have to spread out to deal with each and every state and that would make it more difficult for them to gain a major influence and therefore reduce political coruption.

The police department should only police public highways and public locations, where people gather to conduct their affairs collectively.

They should not police what you do in your house or on your patch of property. The head of the household should be the king of his private truf (with self evident limitations concerning individual rights). You should police and defend you property, or hire your own security guards or equipment to do so, or unless you call 911 because of a emergency you cannot personally handle (like a fire outbreak or mudslide).

Many things that are unlawful in a public place should be lawful on your own private land, unless you use that land as a business open to the public for use by everyone. People need to re-understand that as a actural right.

For example when I was a supervisor of security at a major company we told out gate guards that police cars were not allow onto the property (just to patrol around or to question someone), but if they had thier red lights flashing to indicate an emergency then they were allowed to pass onto the property. (or if they had lights flashing to give someone a ticket who drove onto the property).

[GHook93]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 It doesn't come out and say the right to privacy, but there's not a whole lot that segment can mean.

Hence the prenumbras!