November 18, 200520 yr ie amend the big C to include one so as to settle any debate that it exists? Of course there would be the obvious exceptions like there are for anything else..
November 18, 200520 yr depends what it entails and how it is worded. I think that is a very very tricky thing to consider. It could be very easily abused. example: President Bush hand over the records of your prior years before the White House. Bush: Under the right to privacy, those would not be allowed to be had. Public record vs right to privacy is an intereting debate there.
November 18, 200520 yr ie amend the big C to include one so as to settle any debate that it exists? Of course there would be the obvious exceptions like there are for anything else.. Why have it then? How far would this amendment extend? If a cop pulled me over for speeding, could I not let him search my car if I wanted to? Could a kid sue his high school for searching his locker after having several people say he kept pot in there?
November 18, 200520 yr ie amend the big C to include one so as to settle any debate that it exists? Of course there would be the obvious exceptions like there are for anything else.. Why have it then? How far would this amendment extend? If a cop pulled me over for speeding, could I not let him search my car if I wanted to? Could a kid sue his high school for searching his locker after having several people say he kept pot in there? a minor on their own cannot sue now for anything..
November 18, 200520 yr Author ie amend the big C to include one so as to settle any debate that it exists? Of course there would be the obvious exceptions like there are for anything else.. Why have it then? How far would this amendment extend? If a cop pulled me over for speeding, could I not let him search my car if I wanted to? Could a kid sue his high school for searching his locker after having several people say he kept pot in there? I think you just inadvertently showed that it is in existence implicitely. A cop can't search your if he pulls you over for speeding right now. He has to have probable cause under the fourth amendment and the right against illegal search and seizure. The same applies to the kid and the locker-ie probable cause exists here. But of course you could LET the the cop search your car if you want. Having a right only means the state cant intrude on it, not that you cant choose to waive it. And no right is ever absolute, There are exceptions to free speech and relgion etc,. But we would never say that those shouldnt exist because of the presence of exceptions. Exceptions only give enough leeway as to prevent foolish claims. Essentially this would solidify the right as it exists today in jurisprudence. The government wouldnt be allowed to interfere in your personal decisions or the decisions between people unless the government can present a compelling reason(ie you cant use crack because crack addicts destroy society). But if this right doesnt exist in either amendment form or jurisprudence form(and some people want to get rid of it in this form), the government no longer has to present a compelling interest in order to interfere in certain actions-for example, whether you and your girlfriend can have extramarital sex or use contraceptives. No. The implied right as it is has created loopholes enough. What loopholes and loopholes to what?
November 19, 200520 yr Yes, I would support it. Just so it kills the paparazzi and ends all these crappy paparazzi shows on trash tv 24/7. In the case that it makes it so those guys can't follow people around 24 hours a day and leave them the hell alone, then fine. I still want freedom for the press, just not to that extent.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.