|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Register | Video Directory | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Games | Today's Posts | Search | Chat Room |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
right to privacy Federal vs. California for example....
"Constitutional Right to Protection of Privacy"
By Ralph S. Curtis In recent years, I have seen the constitutional right to privacy referred to with increasing frequency in legal matters. Perhaps this is because, as our society grows and becomes more complex, individual rights are more affected by others and it becomes more important to be able to protect one's privacy. In California, there is a right to privacy set forth in Article I of our Constitution. This is unlike the federal Constitution, where privacy rights have been implied by the courts but never actually stated in the document. The California Constitution states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Privacy was added to the constitution by an amendment approved by the voters in 1972. An election brochure published in support of the amendment stated that it was necessary because government snooping and data collecting was threatening traditional freedoms. Reference was made to what was then a new practice of computerizing records. The brochure noted that there were no restraints on information gathering by government and businesses. People were losing control over the accuracy of records being kept and often did not even know that records existed. The brochure said that unnecessary stockpiling and misuse of information should be prevented. Courts have referred to that election brochure to assist in determining the intent of the voters when they passed the amendment. The right to privacy has been asserted in California in many areas. Initially, it was applied to police surveillance activities in university classrooms. In the case of White v. Davis, a lawsuit was filed to prevent the Los Angeles police department from sending officers posing as students into classes at UCLA. The officers were "gathering intelligence" on the discussions in the classrooms. The Supreme Court held that such activity was an example of a threat to personal privacy contrary to the constitution. The right to privacy has also served to protect against mandatory lie detector tests used as part of the hiring process by some employers. It has prevented disclosure of employees' personnel records except in limited cases and has limited the use of medical records without the consent of the patient. It has also been involved in issues relating to abortion and a person's right to die. In one case, a California appellatecourt held that a competent adult patient with an incurable illness had the right to have life-support equipment disconnected. The court stated that the right to privacy gives an individual the freedom to reject intrusions into his or her body. I expect that as society grows more complex, our constitutional right to privacy will become ever more important as a safeguard of our individual freedoms.
__________________
|
Sponsored Links |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Larry
You are so right. This is such an important issue. it's even more important our kids learn about the Constitution in school. My kids and grandkids and even my younger sister didn't learn it like we did and don't have a clue what we know. It's scarey because in their hands go our future.I tried to stress the importance to them but when they aren't learning it in school because of all this political rewriting and correctness, we get the comments like above. Maybe some of us older ones do get too hung up on this but this is a big deal. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Lady Creffield...
what part of London, U.K. are you from ? You wouldn't be a Cockney would you ? Why not fill out the rest of your profile ? Have had a lot of problems with some folks from overseas ( Staff HQ, WAZZA, SweetSue, etc.. ).. they finally wind up insulting us and going off with their tail tucked neatly under their hind parts.......Just curious ...
Larry
__________________
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
It's a fun word.
"Gotcha" ? Doing what, pray tell?
I like some of the phrasing and idioms in Queen's English, and yes, it manages to infiltrate my every-day speech, but no, I don't live in England. I have the great fortune to live in Oregon, under Ted Kulongoski and his shameless butt-kissing of the radical feminists so he can stay in power. If you insist, I'll fill out my profile. I just don't see the need to. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I don't believe America will become a true "Police State" unless the power to elect representatives (i.e. the ones who enact the laws which police must then enforce) is further reduced. Closed primaries, gerrymandering and the electoral college have gone a long way toward eliminating the democracy we would like to think we have, however.
In a nation exceeding 250,000,000 gun-bearing population, some police presence is inevitable. American police agencies are enormous when you think about it. There is an incredible redundancy at federal, state and local governmental levels, and even private police forces everywhere we turn. I believe that 99% of our police are decent brave people doing mundane and often dangerous dirty work 24 hours a day. It's that 1%, thusfar, who lose it or never should have been given it who give the rest of them a bad name. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Where Are We Heading With This? | HARDCORE | General Posts | 0 | 01-19-2006 08:05 AM |
Martial Law: Police State America - We're So Close Now | urbsdad6 | Political Debate | 0 | 10-01-2005 10:47 AM |
Heading South | Stick | General Posts | 1 | 05-26-2004 07:51 AM |
American Police State Marches On | MORTARDUDE | Political Debate | 5 | 03-26-2004 05:00 AM |
Heading out West | 1CAVCCO15MED | Vietnam | 17 | 11-03-2002 10:49 AM |
|