Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

Mr. may wrote:
> At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote:
> >	My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government
> >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can.
> But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to
> keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of
> Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right
> to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in
> some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the
> First.

Amendment X-

(1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to 
the people.

	As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a 
portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give 
the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, 

	Also:

Amendment IX

-(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be 
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
	
	Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still 
have it. 

	Then:
Amendment IV-

(1791) 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.

	Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds
of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game,
and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public
information to justify crossing that line. 

> Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this.
> Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been
> long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the
> latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style).

	There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated 
that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. 

	It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least
prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the 
confusion? 

	It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others,
and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. 

	God save me from your over zelous followers.
> 
> The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to
> privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made
> this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from
> the Constitution.
> 
> (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion
> was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally
> protected by a woman's right to privacy?)

	Or a man's.