Should our Constitution guarantee a right to Privacy? If so, where should the the Supreme court draw the line between private and public interest? If not, why not?
212566
I believe that our Bill of Right defines all of this you are asking about. Now on the other hand if your engaged in any type of criminal behavior, all of that is out the window.
452758
Doctors are bound by both the law, their ethical oath, and their own moral compass.  Doctors in this story are placing the privacy of their patient before the interests of the people.  The courts will sort it out.
214809
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
10592
The ruling is flawed, but I think so for different reasons. Eminent domain should be used for things that are prima face the people's - schools, hospitals, roads, things like that. Taxpayer dollars have no place in supporting private industry. Individual rights should be sacrosanct from corporations and government. Oh, and about paying fair value, as stated above? In the case this ruling was based on, the New London Development Corporation  wants to pay residents based on value they held in 2000, rather than present value because that's what the original offer was.
541836
Force all employers to give healthcare to their employees?\n\nDon't you see this as a Constitutional overreach by any level of government? By what right does government have to intervene in the private contract between an employer and their employees?\n\nThey really don't have any right or authority to impose this type of costs upon companies.\n\nIsn't it funny how people who whine about Bush and his alleged violations of the Constitution have no qualms about this type of usurpation of powers and invasion of privacy that is contrary to everything the Constitution was founded upon?
196847
The constitution does not say that only citizens are protected by the 4th-8th Amendments, it merely says, "no person." You would want to be given the same rights of citizens if charged in another country, wouldn't you? In fact, the public tends to get up in arms, even when someone IS given the same rights and is given a harsh punishment.
12742
the third ammendment really isnt relavent today.. this was made clear specifically in the constitution because before the revolution.. the british did this.. today.. we have military bases. and housing specifically for american service people.. \n\nthe 9th is used all the time.. some relating issues.. right to privacy which is not specifically in the constitution.. roe vs wade ruling was based on privacy rights..(contradictory to popular belief)...
241748
Everyone has the right to privacy ... irregardless of who we are and how much you earn.  Just the price of privacy rockets for stars as oppose to ordinary joe.  Its only fair, you pay them so much to be seen, they have to pay others to leave them alone.   The world is fair ... ;)
557203
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
97228
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech, but this right is not absolute.  Certain types of speech are not protected by the Constitution, which means that State goverments may promulgate laws to limit them.  Examples include "fighting words" (words meant to provoke a physical fight), "commercial speech" (claims made in advertising), "obscenity" (prurient language), etc.
47058
It sounds to me like you've just made a good argument against your side.  Whether or not you agree with it, you can definetly make the argument that random auditing of private citizens is a violation of the citizen's right to privacy.  In fact, it is more of a violation than auditing of businesses as businesses are not citizens and therefore have no right to privacy (particularly if they are publicly traded companies).  The constitution protects the citizen from random searches, not the business.  \n\nWhile you could make the argument that they have every right to investigate your taxes since you are required to pay them, couldn't you make the same argument for a murder investigation as you are required not to murder?  It's not so much a matter of privacy as due process.  If they check your finacial records in connection with tax returns without any reason to assume you lied to them, how is that any different than checking your financial records in connection with a money-laundering operation without any reason to believe your invovled?  If you want to win your debate you've got to let go of the assumption that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from government investigations.\n\n__________\nIf all they're doing is looking at the paper work you gave them, that's fine.  But that's not what they do.   When it becomes an (arguably) an invasion of privacy is when they then go and check up on external records to confirm you reported you income, etc. honestly.  If you don't report income, they can't find out about it just because it's not on your forms; they have to find evidence that you had the income that you didn't report.
64695
Not lost entirely, no, but perhaps misplaced it a bit.\n\nIn order for a government to be of, by and for the people, the people must be aware of the value of liberty, actively participate in protecting it, and VOTE!  Some people must also be willing to run for the offices we really need, and then stand up for their beliefs in bringing the beaurocracy down to where the government is once more small enough to fit inside the Constitution.\n\n"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law . . . no court can save it."  Learned Hand
489498
The Bill of Rights tell you what  rights as a private citizen of this country you're entitled to.\n The Constitution tells how the government is formed,the different branches and levels of government. And,how it works explaining what it can and cannot do.\n Some of the rights I enjoy are "The right to assemble". \n                                                       "The right to keep and bear arms".\n                                                       "The right to trial by jury". Over the years, I've met several people on the Net and some of them have told me that they wished that their governments allowed  a trial by jury. I tell them that most people in this country avoid jury duty like as if it was a plague and an inconvenience of their time. If you don't use it,you WILL lose it.
160365
It depends on your view points on the law.  I feel the law is too involved in what we do and 'likes' to invade on our privacy.  I think that it also depends on if you really in fact will use it for it's purpose... pain!  I know a few people who take advantage of it being legal.  So you have to ask yourself:  am I really in enough pain?  Would you be using it for yourself?  Or with friends?  Selling it?
12356
Get out of debate now! \n\nWatch out for attacks on privacy, I'm guessing the resolution is "Random drug testing is justified?" so when on aff, they're going to attack you because you have no constitutional right to test for drugs. I like to look for a little thing called the Founder's intent of privacy. \n\nBut really debate is pointless and worthless, as are the great majority of the people who are in it, as you may find.
483316
There is no amendment that states that. But in Roe vs Wade, the big Abortion case. The supreme court cited the 14th Amendment and the "right to privacy" extended to a woman and her body.\n\nRead more on the link provided.
32576
since the constitution and the Bill of rights does not come right out, in black and white, and say certin things are legal or illigal, it is our job to make sure the courts have it right.  So I have no problem testing the supreme court.