Patriot Act is unconstitutional!

@DurtySanches,

DurtySanches;46268 wrote:

I'll ask again, show me where in the Constitution is says anything about a right to privacy? Clock is still runnin.

4th Amendment.

@Fatal Freedoms,

It's not semantics, it's a fact. There is no such saying as a right to privacy in our Constitution? He said they violated his rights, I asked which one, he said "right to privacy" I asked where he has that right and he can not provide and answer. Am i not allowed?
Can you provide me with a link? If not I am far from wrong?

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;46274 wrote:

4th Amendment.

I need it in print, a right to privacy please? Admit it, there is nothing in the Constitution saying so? You said you have a right to privacy yet you cannot provide what you state?

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Durty it was spelled out for you its the FOURTH AMENDMENT. The patriot act allows them to do all of the actions listed in the Fourth with out a warrant. To bad a decent debate is slowly spiraling down hill over a nothing.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

The nothing is the right to privacy you think you have. All your guaranteed in the Constitution is what is stated and there is nothing in there about "Privacy". Period.

1 Reply

@DurtySanches,

DurtySanches;46276 wrote:

I need it in print, a right to privacy please? Admit it, there is nothing in the Constitution saying so? You said you have a right to privacy yet you cannot provide what you state?

"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."

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Then please tell me what the 4th covers.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court ruled that a right of privacy under the Constitution guaranteed a woman's right to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for the Court, circulated among his colleagues a draft announcement that he would later read from the bench as the opinion was released. Chief Justice Warren Burger, a boyhood friend, returned Blackmun's draft with his comments, written in red pencil.

0 Replies

@DurtySanches,

DurtySanches;46279 wrote:

The nothing is the right to privacy you think you have. All your guaranteed in the Constitution is what is stated and there is nothing in there about "Privacy". Period.

If you can't comprehend the meaning of the fourth amendment, even with the definition of privacy posted in the same post, you are beyond help.

Amendment IV

[size=400]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violatedfreedom from unauthorized intrusion[/size] <one's right to privacy>
2archaic : a place of seclusion

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

OF course the constitution doesnt say Right to Privacy... back at the end of the 18th century, when someone said they wanted privacy it meant quite litterally they wanted to take a ****... 18 century privacy was worded differently as in "SECURITY and LIBERTY"

also in 1965 Griswold VS Connecticut the SCOTUS interpreted for RECORD as they have the right to do (They did this with the implementation of Separation of Church and State Also not in the constitution but a lw none th eless) to say that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion

Before anyone calls me a flip flopper (My previous posts) I do not support this Right To Privacy, as I do not support the constitution, a museum worthy artifact, nothing more... we have a piece of parchment written in the 18th century, laying out the laws that we must follow and the actions the government can take in 2007... Come now people... The constitution is like having a Beta VCR, when we need a DVD

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;46329 wrote:

If you can't comprehend the meaning of the fourth amendment, even with the definition of privacy posted in the same post, you are beyond help.

Amendment IV

[size=400]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violatedfreedom from unauthorized intrusion[/size] <one's right to privacy>
2archaic : a place of seclusion

I would also like to add to that, that the word "Privacy" as in "I want some privacy" litterally meant "I want to take a ****" If you take our translation of privacy today, you will use the word SECURITY... which is a guaranteed right in the constitution.

0 Replies

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;46331 wrote:

Before anyone calls me a flip flopper (My previous posts) I do not support this Right To Privacy, as I do not support the constitution, a museum worthy artifact, nothing more... we have a piece of parchment written in the 18th century, laying out the laws that we must follow and the actions the government can take in 2007... Come now people... The constitution is like having a Beta VCR, when we need a DVD

Feel free to move to China, they can take of the people in this modern age. On a serious note, it doesn't matter that it was written in the 18th century, or not, it is the premise for the government model we support. It guarantees rights of the people, and establishs a system of the people with checks and balances to guard against the tranny of oppressive government, which is timeless.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Exactly, a lot of people are using that same argument for removing the 2nd. Sure it was written in the 18th century but we have lived by these words for a few hundred years. If it isnt broken do not fix it. Because if we allow it to be re-written say good by to most of the things you love

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Following the constitution word for word is almost as redundant as believeing the bible word for word...

The Supreme Court of the united states, is granted the power to INTERPRET LAW. And their interpretations set the precedent for how the laws are to be followed. This is not a point to open up argument, its how it is... agree with their interpretations on a moral or ethical stand point if you wish or not... agreeing with it being the law of the land, you can't.

Fortunately that power is not everlasting. as an interpretation of a particular law can be overturned setting anew precedent.

AS OF NOW the law as interpreted by SCOTUS is

RIGHT TO PRIVACY... AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Death to Al Qaeda.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Al Qaeda... You pussy... thats to easy... death to snaggle tooth hill billys who graduated from the 4th grade (holds up 3 fingers)

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Maybe we should all try and ignore Pino when he adds nothing relevant to the discussion. He just wants to get the final word in and make it so that others no longer want to discuss an issue or topic.

1 Reply

@Drakej,

Drakej;46406 wrote:

Maybe we should all try and ignore Pino when he adds nothing relevant to the discussion. He just wants to get the final word in and make it so that others no longer want to discuss an issue or topic.

I'm getting to you, aren't I? No worries. If you show signs of being overly irritated, The Management will step on me in your behalf. I promise not to rough you up too much.

Nah.....Al Qaeda, 911, the Taliban and OBL made it all too clear to me what America is up against. I'm not going to play your silly conspiracist games. I'll stick to reality, and you can keep watching "Loose Change". I couldn't care less.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;45658 wrote:

[SIZE="4"]"Those who sacrifice civil liberties in the name of security deserve neither!"[/SIZE]

-Ben Franklin

What was the context of Ben's statement? Humm?

2 Replies

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;46477 wrote:

What was the context of Ben's statement? Humm?

I am glad you brought up Ben Franklin as your argument (being thanksgiving and all)

It is hard to take a man seriously who in his most POWERFUL years, wanted the national bird to be the Turkey

1 Reply

Patriot Act is unconstitutional!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know