On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > "It is becoming more and more clear that an explicit Privacy amendment needs > to be added to the Constitution." > > I understand what you are saying and don't want any government tracking of > private citizens, but I disagree. > > I think the ruling is in complete contradiction to the constitution. I > think judges, lawyers, and politicians, have all bought into the living, > breathing document argument and it is going to kill our freedoms.
I agree that it is in contradiction to the Constitution but privacy has always been one of those weird areas because it isn't explicitly laid out very well. It is what folks often refer to as an "inferred" property. Anontin Scalia has particularly laid out a view that there is no right to privacy protected in the Constitution. With a greater emphasis on "originalism" coming from the right wing, I think you'll see a greater push toward that point of view. Obviously, the supposed left wing in power (ie Obama) isn't pushing hard to defend it when it isn't convenient. That leaves me thinking that we need a more explicit and clear definition of a fundamental right that is worded in such a way that it is harder to have technology outpace a slow moving judiciary. Cheers, Juda ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326213 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
