Originally posted by dadudemon
So you are saying that being grateful for someone's passive help is not a form of respect, right?
There is a difference between being respectful (Manners etc) and respect itself.
I am not necessarily respectful to people I respect, and I do not necessarily respect people I am respectful to.
-AC
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Where in the US Constitution is privacy a right? What amendment, article and clause?
It's not... the Supreme Court has made decisions concluding that "privacy" is a basic human right, therefore covered under the 9th Amendment (B.O.R.) But I don't think that's what Debbie meant.
Remember the uproar a few years ago when the Bush Cabinet/Jomelandsecurity wanted to have "free" wiretaps to (supposedly) look for terrorist and people went in an uproar because of it, it was over the 9th and the "right" to privacy.
Originally posted by Robtard
It's not... the Supreme Court has made decisions concluding that "privacy" is a basic human right, therefore covered under the 9th Amendment (B.O.R.) But I don't think that's what Debbie meant.Remember the uproar a few years ago when the Bush Cabinet/Jomelandsecurity wanted to have "free" wiretaps to (supposedly) look for terrorist and people went in an uproar because of it, it was over the 9th and the "right" to privacy.
Exactly, it was a trick question. I think it's sad that so many Americans think a 'right to privacy' is guaranteed under the Constitution.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaAmendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was originally designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution. Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.
Where in the US Constitution is privacy a right? What amendment, article and clause?
The amendment applies only to governmental actors; it does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations. The Bill of Rights only restricts the power of the federal government, but the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to state governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope. Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.
''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.'' 7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment
REFERENCES:
Garrow, David J. 1994. LIBERTY AND SEXUALITY: THE MAKING OF ROE v. WADE. New York: Macmillan.
Lewis, Anthony. 1964. GIDEON’S TRUMPET. New York: Random House.
CASE REFERENCES:
BOWERS v. HARDWICK, 478 US 186 (1986). [*249]
BOYD v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616 (1886).
GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT, 372 US 335 (1963).
GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 US 479 (1965).
LAWRENCE v. TEXAS, 539 US 558 (2003).
POE v. ULLMAN, 367 US 497 (1961).
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/johnson305.htm
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is a difference between being respectful (Manners etc) and respect itself.I am not necessarily respectful to people I respect, and I do not necessarily respect people I am respectful to.
-AC
That sounds like a song lyric.
I´m nearly always respectful to everyone unless I´m having a bad day, or that persons annoys me. And being polite to cops also helps things along, I´ve been stopped often and due to my politeness have been let off.
In the video the driver was slightly agitated, and the cop was also not having a good day and was in an intolerant mood imo, this lead to the "shocking " situation. Cops are trained to deal with a vary of situations, how to diffuse them etc. this cop obviously sneaked out of that lesson.
I saw a video once, (tried to find it on you tube without success) where some man who was stopped went absolutely ballistic and the cop remained extraordinarily calm and dealt with the situation amazingly. The cop won some award for it. Ahh just found it🙂
Originally posted by BicnarokI was gonna post that same exact vid a while back, but I decided not to.....why? because a few members here will say "It's not real" or "It has nothing to do with the subject at hand." It hurts their argument, so they will ignore it and or discredit it.
That sounds like a song lyric.I´m nearly always respectful to everyone unless I´m having a bad day, or that persons annoys me. And being polite to cops also helps things along, I´ve been stopped often and due to my politeness have been let off.
In the video the driver was slightly agitated, and the cop was also not having a good day and was in an intolerant mood imo, this lead to the "shocking " situation. Cops are trained to deal with a vary of situations, how to diffuse them etc. this cop obviously sneaked out of that lesson.
I saw a video once, (tried to find it on you tube without success) where some man who was stopped went absolutely ballistic and the cop remained extraordinarily calm and dealt with the situation amazingly. The cop won some award for it. Ahh just found it🙂
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Yes, I'd ignore it, because it doesn't show anything other than what we already knew.If someone claimed that all police are violent and over reactive, then there would be a reason to post the video.
I think the issue is that RJ is making the point that police ALWAYS the right away in every case and no one is agreeing with that.
Originally posted by Rogue JediWhy would they say it's not real? And did anyone ever say to you that "all cops are crazy" and that "everytime they stop someone they attack them"? Because otherwise it really doesn't hurt anyone's argument.
I was gonna post that same exact vid a while back, but I decided not to.....why? because a few members here will say "It's not real" or "It has nothing to do with the subject at hand." It hurts their argument, so they will ignore it and or discredit it.