Posted on 06/12/2013 8:12:50 AM PDT by EveningStar
As part of our “Next 10 Amendments” debate series, we’re asking our readers if it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect their privacy.
The furor in the past two weeks over government eavesdropping on the media and citizens has raised a lot of questions related to the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.constitutioncenter.org ...
The thought of a ConCon being thrown open in an age of low-info voters scares the literal crap out of me.
We need one, but as the Constitution is inactive, it won’t help.
Like privacy? Like RKBA?
er do we not have the 4th oh wait even a couple of sheep freepers think it’s alright to spy and would rather attack the guy who told the world the NSA and the obama Govt is spying on us all .
We have enough laws and rules and we have a constitution , how about going by it and if the obama Govt can’t abide by the laws then why should we
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 seizedOh wait....
hell we need aconstitutional amendment to protect our constitution- like judge napolitano said htism ornign basically that what we’re seeign with hte abuses of power was the very reasons our constitutionwas set up i nthe first place- and he said, this is exactly what you see when there are no reigns on executive power- the constitution is no longer even a barrier to them
That’s how abortion became legal in the US. The Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Constitution.
You need a Constitution Police ,go against the constitution and you will be investigated by the IRS ,NSA, DHS ,SS and the FBI ,reverse of what Obama is doing LOL sorry
We already have a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes the right to privacy (although i would argue that the 9th amendment does as well). It’s called Roe v. Wade.
About time that conservatives started citing that ruling to support conservative arguments against government intrusions into other aspects of our lives — the NSA surveillance, and while we’re at it, intrusive IRS audits, investigations and tax return requirements.
We’ve got one. Its called the 4th amendment.
No. We already have one.
Then there's the crowd who want the privacy to murder their unborn and their elderly relatives ~ without even fear of public tut tuting.
No Constitutional amendment about privacy will affect the spying. It is the nature of government. In matters of collecting information, if it can be done it will be done. The only amendment that might help, if it did not lead to the formal abrogation of the Constitution and a full on Coup would be one limiting the government revenue and spending to a 5% cut of the GDP and/or one that reduces the government agencies to the four cabinet positions of the first Administration and limits government employment to .5% of the employed population and some et ceteras.
Perhaps we need an amendment that requires observance of the Constitution in toto? Would that amendment bany more observed by the government than what is already in the COnstitution?
The left has taken the “Humpty Dumpty” viewpoint on the Constitution -
“when I say ‘Constitutional’, it means exactly what I need it to mean at that moment, no more, no less”
so should those who ordered the spying be executed <smiles.?
it will only be ignored and they will only go around it.
I just got back from the dentist and everyone from the dentist to those waiting in the waiting room were all talking about this and saying this was out fo order and oabma has gone to far, course there were no low info people there as everyone seemed to know what was and has been going on
Ordinary police surveillance of a public road is 'spying' ~ looking out your front window at the street is 'spying' ~ your neighbor looking back in through your uncovered window could also be spying.
Vision is always in an on-state, as is hearing. What you see and what you hear aren't always under your control. Criminalizing vision and hearing, although attempted from time to time, really isn't going to work out.
Occasionally one of the folks we trusted to keep the national secrets secret will run off with them to an enemy. Obviously we should execute him. After all, that's what we would do to any enemy spy, right?
We already have the 4th Amendment, and it is being violated. If we cannot hold our government accountable for that amendment we cannot hold it accountable for anything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.