Should we amend the constitution?
|
Anonymous commented:holy crap, that was hilarious. I almost shot lunch out my nose. Yes. Right to privacy, good. Bush's right to our privacy, bad.-ryaNon Tue Dec 12 12:53:40 2006 |
Nikki commented: Hmmm, right to privacy... just think what a Supreme Court could do to that! In all seriousness, it is not enough to simply say the right to privacy without adding parameters, and isn't that where we get into trouble already? The Supreme Court left to decide what that means is an awfully scary concept, but I do applaude your ambition in laying out and contemplating this issue. Not enough people do. Heck, not enough people even are aware that not only are they not safer than they were pre-9/11 they have fewer rights in exchange for their sad illusion. See how many double negatives there are there? I think that qualifies me for a judicial seat--and I'd be more than happy to define privacy, among other things, on behalf of the greater public.on Tue Dec 12 20:20:22 2006 |
Anonymous commented: The privacy issue would at least clarify a major point of contention in the supreme court right now. A large number of modern decisions are based on the implied constitutional right to privacy. Many conservatives have, for a long time now, been able to focus on that technicality as a reason to oppose those decisions. This has allowed them to appear moderate while supporting conservative views. By codifying that right, those same individuals would then be forced to either a) actually take the conservative stance and shed their sheepskin or b) support the those decisions that have come to be accepted as part of mainstream law. I do think that their needs to be some additional definition around 'the right to privacy'. At the very least, it needs to be defined as the right to personal privacy or privacy in personal matters. The major issue would be defining this right in such a way that it protects the legitimate needs of private citizens without providing criminals with a carte blanc to avoid investigation. Just my two cents. -Andrew (I really need to setup a login)on Wed Dec 13 13:20:24 2006 |
Nikki commented: Very true and great points, Andrew. But then comes the question of who should really be left to define it. I certainly do not want to see it in the hands of any of the current branches of government. It would either never be accomplished or we would end up losing more than we gain. I'd like to say I have the wherewithal and resources to convene a citizen-represented group to work on defining this out and presenting it, but I don't. It would be an interesting experiement nonetheless... and just the kind of democracy no one in our government wants to really see.on Wed Dec 13 14:31:07 2006 |
David commented: Y'all went serious on this one. I'll respond accordingly. Nikki, I think you're absolutely right that a very vague amendment would lead to a lot of confusion at first. But I also think that the amendments which are flexible enough to move with the times are the ones that are best. I give you the eighth amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Obviously this is an amendment we're having some trouble with today, but this is in part because it is one which has been able to change with the times. If they had enumerated which punishments were cruel (in 1791), then when the mores of the American people changed, the constitution would not have been able to follow their will.on Fri Dec 15 07:06:55 2006 |