Starchild,
Here we are talking about the government enforcing privacy for a family
member in conflict with another family member. What you are talking
about is the government snooping on its citizens. These are entirely
different.
Mike
Dear Starchild;
For clarification purposes the 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the states.
I believe you may have been referring to the 9th Amendment which states: the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10 Amendments were specifically written to enumerate what the government could not do as requested of the Framers of the Constitution
Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Starchild,
Here we are talking about the government enforcing privacy for a family member in conflict with another family member. What you are talking about is the government snooping on its citizens. These are entirely different.
Mike
Ron,
You are right, I meant the Ninth Amendment. But I stand by my statements about the nature of the Constitution as a whole.
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
For clarification purposes the 10th amendment states that the powers not delegated to the US nor prohibited to the States are reserved to the states.
I believe you may have been referring to the 9th Amendment which states: the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 10 Amendments were specifically written to enumerate what the government could not do as requested of the Framers of the Constitution
Mike Denny <mike@...> wrote:
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
Starchild,Here we are talking about the government enforcing privacy for a family member in conflict with another family member. What you are talking about is the government snooping on its citizens. These are entirely different.
Mike
<image.tiff>
From:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:09 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: MORE ON PRIVACYRon,
Although the Bill of Rights tends to engender some confusion on this point, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution as a whole is a document saying what government *may* do, not what it *may not* do. The Tenth Amendment reminds us that the listing of certain rights in the Bill of Rights does not mean that other rights not so listed do not exist.
In other words, if the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to violate the privacy of individuals, then it is not authorized to do so, and such actions would be unconstitutional. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone who says that the federal government does have such an authority, to cite the provision of the Constitution which he or she believes contains such authorization.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Mike;
The Constitution is silent on the "Right to Privacy" as well as in the Amendments. This is due to the fact the 'Right to Privacy" was not an issue until recently.
The "Right to Privacy" is not addressed in the 4th Amendment as it addresses unreasonable searches and seizures without a search warrant. This has already been trammeled on through drug law seizure policies and subsequently not overturned by the US Supreme Court in its collective finite wisdom in not upholding the Constitution. This also extends to seizing drunk drivers cars and cars of johns soliciting prostitutes.
There is no Constitutional "Right to Privacy". If you believe there is one please quote the relevant passage from the Constitution or the Amendements.
Please remember the Bill of Rights was explicitly written to state what Congress or the Government could not do to take away from the citizens. As regards the 2nd Amendment people had the right to keep and bear arms it is that Congress could not pass a law taking away the rights of Milita to keep and bear arms. The people retained and have retained the right it is various legislative bodies who have tried to do away with this right contrary to the Constitution and not having those laws struck down as un-Constitutional. This is the bug-bear.
Government wants to take away firearms from its citizens then the citizens are no longer safe from the government. Look at New Orleans and the Police State taking firearms away from citizens legally owning them. But did you notice how over in Texas durng the evacuations the Governor or the town mayors did not issue a take away firearms edicts. They knew what would happen the first time a police oficer showed up to take away a legally owned firearm from a Texan..... Yeehah!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Mike,
I thought the right to privacy was the underlying basis for the 4th
Amendment's specific prohibition on unreasonable searches. If there is
no right to privacy, then what's wrong with a warrantless search? I
can't believe that your response to government listening in on random
phone calls would be that people making calls which can be so easily
monitored simply have not paid for enough privacy.
The philosophy that "one only has the rights that one pays for" could
be more readily argued in the case of firearms, since all that's needed
for one's privacy to be intact is for one to be left alone, while for
one to have guns, someone else must act to provide them (barring
self-manufacture, of course). If you are not prepared to argue that the
right to keep and bear arms does not exist, how can you argue that the
right to privacy does not exist? The fact that the right to keep and
bear arms is explicitly listed in the Second Amendment should not be a
major consideration here -- virtually every Libertarian knows that the
Bill of Rights does not give us any rights, it merely lists *some* of
the rights we already have as protection against government taking them
away.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
> Here’s the background….the court struck down parental consent because
> of the “right to privacy”. Every Libertarian knows there’s no “right”
> to privacy. One only gets the privacy they pay for. The CA Supreme
> Court decision that led to this proposition was bogus. While not
> perfect, this is a way to move this decision back. It has nothing to
> do with abortion, conservative values or “superstition”.
>
> Mike
>
>
> In 1997, the California Supreme Court struck down a
> state law that required parental consent for a minor to have
> an abortion on the grounds that it violated the right to privacy
> in the state Constitution.
>
> Currently, 26 states have waiting period laws, 20 require
> parental consent, and 13 require parental notification. Eight-
> een states have no parental notification or consent require-
> ment, either because such laws were never adopted (CT, HI,
> NY, WA, OR, VT, WA) or because courts have invalidated existing laws
> (AK, CA, FL, IA, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OK).
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Mike,
Yes, granted they are different. The issue of privacy came up, and my comments below relate to that general issue, not specifically to Prop. 73. I don't think the right to privacy applies *only* in cases involving government snooping, but I do agree with you that a dependent minor should not have a legal right to privacy with regard to his or her own parents or guardians.
Arguably the emancipation laws do not provide adequate opportunity for a dependent minor to seek independent legal status, but I would say this problem is best addressed directly rather than adding to the rights of dependent minors on the grounds that some of them would be independent if the laws were more fairly written. Perhaps as a stopgap measure, the rights of minors who have taken steps toward legal independence, but are waiting as their appeals to wend their way through the bureaucratic process, should be enhanced beyond those of ordinary minors.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Starchild,
Here we are talking about the government enforcing privacy for a family member in conflict with another family member. What you are talking about is the government snooping on its citizens. These are entirely different.
Mike
<image.tiff>
From:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:09 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: MORE ON PRIVACYRon,
Although the Bill of Rights tends to engender some confusion on this point, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution as a whole is a document saying what government *may* do, not what it *may not* do. The Tenth Amendment reminds us that the listing of certain rights in the Bill of Rights does not mean that other rights not so listed do not exist.
In other words, if the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to violate the privacy of individuals, then it is not authorized to do so, and such actions would be unconstitutional. Therefore the burden of proof is on anyone who says that the federal government does have such an authority, to cite the provision of the Constitution which he or she believes contains such authorization.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Mike;
The Constitution is silent on the "Right to Privacy" as well as in the Amendments. This is due to the fact the 'Right to Privacy" was not an issue until recently.
The "Right to Privacy" is not addressed in the 4th Amendment as it addresses unreasonable searches and seizures without a search warrant. This has already been trammeled on through drug law seizure policies and subsequently not overturned by the US Supreme Court in its collective finite wisdom in not upholding the Constitution. This also extends to seizing drunk drivers cars and cars of johns soliciting prostitutes.
There is no Constitutional "Right to Privacy". If you believe there is one please quote the relevant passage from the Constitution or the Amendements.
Please remember the Bill of Rights was explicitly written to state what Congress or the Government could not do to take away from the citizens. As regards the 2nd Amendment people had the right to keep and bear arms it is that Congress could not pass a law taking away the rights of Milita to keep and bear arms. The people retained and have retained the right it is various legislative bodies who have tried to do away with this right contrary to the Constitution and not having those laws struck down as un-Constitutional. This is the bug-bear.
Government wants to take away firearms from its citizens then the citizens are no longer safe from the government. Look at New Orleans and the Police State taking firearms away from citizens legally owning them. But did you notice how over in Texas durng the evacuations the Governor or the town mayors did not issue a take away firearms edicts. They knew what would happen the first time a police oficer showed up to take away a legally owned firearm from a Texan..... Yeehah!!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Mike,
I thought the right to privacy was the underlying basis for the 4th
Amendment's specific prohibition on unreasonable searches. If there is
no right to privacy, then what's wrong with a warrantless search? I
can't believe that your response to government listening in on random
phone calls would be that people making calls which can be so easily
monitored simply have not paid for enough privacy.
The philosophy that "one only has the rights that one pays for" could
be more readily argued in the case of firearms, since all that's needed
for one's privacy to be intact is for one to be left alone, while for
one to have guns, someone else must act to provide them (barring
self-manufacture, of course). If you are not prepared to argue that the
right to keep and bear arms does not exist, how can you argue that the
right to privacy does not exist? The fact that the right to keep and
bear arms is explicitly listed in the Second Amendment should not be a
major consideration here -- virtually every Libertarian knows that the
Bill of Rights does not give us any rights, it merely lists *some* of
the rights we already have as protection against government taking them
away.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
> Here’s the background….the court struck down parental consent because
> of the “right to privacy”. Every Libertarian knows there’s no “right”
> to privacy. One only gets the privacy they pay for. The CA Supreme
> Court decision that led to this proposition was bogus. While not
> perfect, this is a way to move this decision back. It has nothing to
> do with abortion, conservative values or “superstition”.
>
> Mike
>
>
> In 1997, the California Supreme Court struck down a
> state law that required parental consent for a minor to have
> an abortion on the grounds that it violated the right to privacy
> in the state Constitution.
>
> Currently, 26 states have waiting period laws, 20 require
> parental consent, and 13 require parental notification. Eight-
> een states have no parental notification or consent require-
> ment, either because such laws were never adopted (CT, HI,
> NY, WA, OR, VT, WA) or because courts have invalidated existing laws
> (AK, CA, FL, IA, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, OK).
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>