And what Democrat would be moron enough to think that privacy is a privilege that government should control?
Since they were check boxes, I went ahead and checked "privilege" for both Democrat and Republican since in my observation they both generally seem to think government has no limit. -=Steve=-
One explicitly outlined in the Constitution, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms, or to petition the government for redress of grievances. -=Steve=-
For current purposes, one determined by and conferred by the government. In the U.S. it is ostensibly the citizenry that empowers the government and not vice versa.
Unfortunately, there's nothing ostensible about it! Most notably, we empower them every April 15! Oy vey! -=Steve=-
Don't feed the beast? I've seen anarchocaps say just that and say as well to grab every beastly benefit so as to hasten the beast's demise.
I don't understand the question. I agree with Judge (soon to be Justice) Roberts that the right to privacy appeared many, many years ago in constitutional jurisprudence (long before Roe v Wade, for example). I also believe that the right does lurk behind the specific constitutional restrictions on governmental interference with our lives. Whether to read the right narrowly or broadly seems to me to be closely related to whether one believes that the government is best which governs least. I do believe that, so I want the right read broadly. But even the broadest and most fundamental of constitutional rights is not absolute. SOME government control is ALWAYS present. We hem it in with due process, or at least we try to do so, but the control is there nevertheless.
I'm not comfortable with the right-privilege dichotomy. I don't think that privacy is a fundamental right that trumps any other consideration. By that I mean that police shouldn't be constitutionally forbidden from investigating crimes for fear of violating criminals' privacy. SEC regulations that require publicly traded companies to disclose information shouldn't be overturned. It shouldn't be unconsitutional for newspapers to report on public figures. But I don't think that privacy is a privilege that our ever-paternal government bestows on us either. I'm not sure how I would characterize it. Perhaps as a defeasible presumption.
Alas! I've seen those varying libertarian points of view on it too, but I wasn't suggesting an approach, just forlornly acknowledging the situation. -=Steve=-
Re: Re: Stupid question- Now it could be the liberal in me(well at least I've been accused of being liberal on several occasions) but I interrupted the question to be in more of a intrusive sense for example illegal search and seizure or warrant less searches, and even to the more extreme Orwellian notions of "Big Brother". Which I say keep the government out!
To the six of you (especially the two Democrats) who so voted, I ask: Since when has privacy been a privilige?
