One day I was standing in front of the ice cream counter. Rum Raisin or Blue Moon? The rich flavor of Rum Raisin or the cool taste of Blue Moon. The thrill of finding a soft tasty raisin or the wonderful flavor of the blueberry. My thought pattern was disrupted by my son yelling "Dad make up your mind, I want some chocomania". Then the reality of the situation hit me, sometimes too much information isn't good.
I have come to the conclusion that I am just as smart as so-called experts. After all they are just humans that living off of their life experiences.
The case decision is too long to post but here is what it covered:
While acknowledging that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, Justice William O. Douglas' majority opinion asserted that the First Amendment's right of association; the Third Amendment's prohibition against quartering soldiers in citizens' homes; the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal searches of homes; the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination; and the Ninth Amendment's statement that individuals may enjoy rights not specifically defined in the Constitution, in combination, create the "penumbra" -- or shadows -- of a right to privacy.
Yes, I do think that creating precedence for the right of privacy is great work. The opinion does not create legislation in the least, but interprets what is already there. The Founding Fathers intentionally did not create a specific list of each right that should be afforded the people because they were afraid they might miss something or even worse that if something was not included someone in the future would have the ability to claim certain basic human rights did not legally exist since they were not enumerated. Instead they named a few and created a framework where others could be implied and extracted. Again, they were afraid of legislation that enumerated each right and the right to privacy does not require a Constitutional amendment. The reason why certain people in the government were upset is because it limited the restrictions they could place on the populace, but I thought freedom was the point (so did the court). Why don�t you like it?
There is a Justice that pissed of a lot of people by referring to many of the amendments to create the right of privacy. Not just one. More than four. It was inferred and that is all I will say other than he has upset the government through time. But, remember that it takes a majority of the Justices to make it a decision. He wrote the opinion only. It was never explicitly implied by the Constitution. And, that is one thing that makes this country great.
Upsets me too... but you think that's "great". Seems over the past 40 years, a lot of "new" constitutional meanings have been "found" by the higher courts (aka the 9th circut court of appeals jumps to mind). Legislation by the judicial branch is NOT their job. While the constitution is billed as a "living" document, there are procedures to add or delete from it. Any changes fall on a super majority vote of the house, senate, and finally the states themselves... once again, NOT on the courts.
Yes, thats the whole point.
Now you Americans can go at war whenever you want to, and were you want.
Now we dont even have to try find a proper solution for problems, you have the power, the technologie and the bombs.Lets go the war...
Follow your strong leader.
What are you afraid of, Ead? I encourage a vigorous debate of the facts without insults. You encourage insults. When people are dying in a war we the people of the United States enable, we should take nothing for granted and always question it to make certain it is just and right and if it does not stand up to scrutiny it should be stopped if possible. If it is a just war worthy of the deaths it has nothing to fear in the face of the facts (which you hate so much).
I pity you and the hate that is your burden. I hope you find balance.
Funny, you made my point. You say we are all learning but attack any debate and people that raise issues. Debate helps people learn. An impassioned plea to learn as much as possible applies to everyone including myself. People who are afraid of the truth say there is no point in seeking it since it can't be known. The historians of last night warned against attitudes such as yours.
Yes, grasshopper, er- I mean could-a, you have much to learn as the wise dingo will impart to you as you continue to ask "good" questions.
Of course "Please learn" does not mean could-a is stupid. Did the all-knowing Dingo mean to say "Please learn" does not mean I think you are stupid.
"It simply means explore." This means that you will cease to be stupid if you happen to absorb all the absolute truths that Dingo will impart.
"You ask good questions that should be answered."
"Learn. Please learn."
Dingo, you know... you have not learned absolute truth. You don't possess it. You cannot impart it. None of us has that. You are so sure you've stumbled on many facets of truth and that your level of enlightenment is beyond all others. Missplucky was right, if post-modernist is defined as she defined it, then you are that.
Some of your opinions are good and worthy of acknowledgement, but some are not. That's my opinion. I may be plucky and self-centered, self-absorbed and flippant and any other negative attribute you can name, but I am not so pompous and ignorant as to imply that I possess all absolute truth around things as broad and multi-faceted as history and politics and wars, past and present.
You just keep learning as we all do and maybe when you're older and wiser you'll realize you still have a lot to learn about a lot of things and you'll still never know it all or have every viewpoint possible. And then maybe, just maybe you'll realize how bizarre "Learn, please learn" sounds.
Reply by just placing me on ignore.