07-01-2003, 01:35 PM
|
#30 (permalink)
|
|
Psycho
|
just to throw a few quotes from the supreme court into the discussion:
Quote:
In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice Douglas wrote:
"...that specific guareanttess in the Bill of rights have penumbras formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance... Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one... The Third Amendment in its prohibition agaisnt quartering of soldiers "in any house" in the time of peace without the consent of the owner is another face of privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects agaisnt unreasonable seraches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in it it's self Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which the government may not force him to surrender to hit detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disprage others retianed by the people."
|
Quote:
From page 124, Civil Rights and Liberties- Provactive Questions and Evolving Answers by Harold J. Sullivan:
"While the First and Fifth Amendments protect us from exposing our private thoughts, when those thoughts could subject us to harm, the Third and Fourth Amendments provide protection for our homes and personal papers. They, in effect, codify the notion that "your home is your castle." FInally, the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has been interpreted at times as protecting us from government instrustion into our "private affairs"."
|
Quote:
Justice Blackmun, Bowers v. Hardwick(1986):
"This case is no more about 'a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy', as the Court puprorts to declare, than Stanley v Georgia was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. United States, was about a fundamental right to palce interstate bets from a telephone booth(1967). Rather, this case is about "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men, namely, the right to be left alone'".Olmstead v. United States(1928)
|
Quote:
Justice Stevens, Bowers v. Hardwick(1986):
Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a state that has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a suffficent reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; niether history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation(interracial marriage) from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concering the intimacies of their phyiscal relationship, even when not intended to prodcue off-spring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the due processs clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|
|
|