Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
In reality, though, what is so secret about a law that says you must show an ID?
If there are pieces of the same law that would tell about some super secret technology or technique, then the judge could/should deny that disclosure, but how can talking about some minimum wage person checking your drivers license against the name on your ticket be a problem with national security? We already know it's happening, right?
This sounds more like legal wrangling than security.
Frankly, I find some of the things that were pushed through (parts of the Patriot Act) after 9/11 to be worrisome from the standpoint of our Constitutional Rights.
I also find it interesting that those we consider Conservatives today support those abridgements. Weren't Conservatives originally the ones who steadfastly upheld strict interpratations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
|
Well, the "Right to Privacy" is a non-enumerated right. And as such does not have as high a priority. In fact, our right to safety does outweigh it in most cases. It's been tried in many cases, for example, you do not have the right to privacy when a policeman asks you for identification, that's gone to the Supreme Court.
And as far as strict interpretation of the Constitution goes, there is nothing specific about a right to privacy in there.
It's the Ninth Amendment that gives these non-enumerated rights. It reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-- and that's where the so-called right to privacy comes from (which is actually based on a lose interpretation).
Hybrid Mode
