"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f03bbbf.65824271@no-spam
>> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >And I believe everybody should have equal protection and a right to
>privacy
>> >no matter what state they live in.
>>
>> A right to privacy for sex, or a right to privacy that extends to gun
>> ownership, banking, travel within one's own nation?
>
>Right to privacy in context with the off-topic discussion of this thread,
>which would be sex. The rest are completely different topics.
You are dodging my simple question.
(Add: The right to rent a government PO Box without telling them where
you sleep.)
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:06:35 GMT, upstart23@no-spam (Heck's Kitchen)
wrote:
snip
>My problem is that they are carving out a narrow right of privacy,
>instead of a broad one. I believe that the right to privacy should
>extend to more spheres, not this limited politically-correct one. I
>believe that cops should have to give a Miranda-type disclosure before
>obtaining consent for a search that would not be permissible without
>consent, for instance.
Whaddya know...Benny and I actually agree on something.
Seriously now, this is a good point. However, there are those on both
ends of the political spectrum who want to control privacy. Combine
the sets of behavior that both ends would like to legislate against
and you'd end up with a pretty broad spectrum.
I'm all for the Miranda-type disclosure before obtaining search
consent, myself.
jrw
Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> My problem is that they are carving out a narrow right
> of privacy, instead of a broad one. I believe that the
> right to privacy should extend to more spheres, not this
> limited politically-correct one.
This is absolutely correct. But it was the use of the
word "privacy" instead of "liberty" that created what we
know as this narrow right. That was perhaps deliberate.
The government doesn't want to open cans of worms
even if it's a can that needs opening.
This recent court ruling, by the way, distances itself
from the term "privacy" and favored "liberty" instead
(a fact many did not notice, apparently). I will
post an excellent article on this soon.
Note that Bill Shatzer's interpretation of
the Constitution is such that while he
agrees with this right as exercised by the
couple in Texas, he would also claim that
neither one of them had a right to wear
a blue shirt during the act.
The inconsistency is astounding.
Bob T
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote:
> I'm all for the Miranda-type disclosure before obtaining search
> consent, myself.
I would have supposed it unnecessary to point out to -you- Joyce
the essential differences between a confession and a search or why
the two are in no way constitutionally equivelent.
But, consider it on a philosophical level. Before the accused
opens his mouth, there -is- no confession.
The evidence in the house exists (or does not exists) independently of
whether consent is given for the search.
How would we enforce a Miranda-type warning for consent searches?
We can assume that the un-Mirandized accused would not have confessed
had s/he been given the appropriate warnings. But can we assume that
the cops would not have located the evidence without the consent to
the search?
THAT seems a bit of a stretch.
Peace and justice,
Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Heck's Kitchen wrote:
> >> I believe that the laws on such conduct should be enacted
> >> by state-by-state legal process, not by 6 judges in DC.
> > Would you say the same thing if a majority of the USSC
> > refuses to overturn a state gun control law and says that
> > such laws ought to be "enacted by state-by-state legal
> > process"?
> Fair point, but the key question is whether or not the
> behavior is constitutionally protected.
When you say things like this it appears that
the real issue is that you have a personal
problems with the behavior and are hiding behind
the states' rights issue, and the tyranny of
the majority concept. That might be fine if
you're dealing with something other than
individual rights.
Look, so far as I'm concerned no level of
government has any business violating
people's rights so far as they are not
bothering anyone and all that. Sometimes
the Federal court system has to come to
someone's rescue, and sometimes a state
court has to do that.
> Some things are tolerable for state legislatures
> to make stupid statutes about, and some aren't.
> The best case against anti-sodomy laws is that
> they can not be fairly enforced across society
> except by unconstitutional means.
That sounds like you're saying that it
would be okay to have what even you'd
consider to be unconstitutional laws
if they can easily be enforced (i.e.
that it would be really easy for
police, code-compliance officers etc
to spot violations in the open).
That's naughty of you.
It should also be pointed out that, since
you brought up "unconstitutional means"
(like cameras everywhere, or searches),
I recall Bill Shatzer (who else) stating
that it would be constitutional for
government agents to conduct surprise
home searches (with warrants, I might add)
to check on the quality of the food in
the pantries if there was a law stating
that people must have good food on hand.
In other words, while I would toss out
this law in the first place as none
of the government's business, Ol' Shatz
without question accepts the idea of the
law and then casually and complacently accepts
the idea of surprise searches to enforce
this hypothetical law because the government
must have had good reason to pass it (i.e.
it's a good goal).
Bob T