In your opinion...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Awesome.

[Scott & Lai 12]

There's also no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court "found" one....

There's also no authorization for Congress to spend the people's money on acts of charity, but the government "found" that as well...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's also no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court "found" one....

There's also no authorization for Congress to spend the people's money on acts of charity, but the government "found" that as well...

(this was written in 2003 but makes a worthy argument)

Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?

by Harry Browne

Senator Rick Santorum recently caused a brouhaha when, during an Associated Press interview, he defended laws against sodomy — saying that permitting sodomy is as good as saying polygamy, incest, and adultery should be permitted.

This provoked a firestorm — and that caused a far more troubling Santorum statement to be overlooked. He said:

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution . . .

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right?

I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married — that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?

The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.

How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?

Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

Edited November 12, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

What's sad is that if we had a government today that actually believed in the Constitution, it would be considered RADICAL. We've come full circle.

[Scott & Lai 12]

... the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

What's sad is that if we had a government today that actually believed in the Constitution, it would be considered RADICAL. We've come full circle.

If we had such a government, it would be far smaller, far less intrusive, and there'd be no welfare state.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

What's sad is that if we had a government today that actually believed in the Constitution, it would be considered RADICAL. We've come full circle.

If we had such a government, it would be far smaller, far less intrusive, and there'd be no welfare state.

IOW - radical