4 ms·

>The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects agai

>The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.

mpalczewski 4y ago
You failed at understanding the author.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I don't think factual inaccuracies should get a free pass under the principle of assuming good faith, because the principle of assuming good faith only applies to how ambiguous claims should be construed. There is no way to construe "the constitution does not mention privacy" as a correct statement.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Yes, as "the constitution does not explicitly mention privacy" or "... does not mention privacy by that term."
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      "The constitution does not use the word privacy, although it does directly protect it," is not a reasonable interpretation in context.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        “The constitution does not explicitly use the term privacy but does refer to related concepts from which one can infer some logic about what kinds of privacy are protected vs not” is a reasonable interpretation in context … and coincidentally, exactly what the author is arguing, once you get beyond the quoted part. I think this whole subthread is being too hard on a snippet.
  - rat9988 4y ago
    Op is saying there is no factual inaccuracy though. And I agree with him.
- Jiro 4y ago
  It doesn't say the exact word "privacy" or "abortion", but what it does say is a lot closer to privacy than to abortion.
  - suture 4y ago
    The five axioms of Euclidean geometry don’t mention triangles and yet they are a big part of geometry. The five axioms of Euclidean geometry give rise to a vast collection of consequences. The U.S. Constitution is considerably more complex than the 5 axioms of geometry so one should not be surprised that concepts will arise as logical consequences that are not specifically mentioned in the document. This is especially so since the Constitution was not written with mathematical precision.
car_analogy 4y ago
Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was legal only so long as you don't tell anyone about it.
- lemonlime 4y ago
  >Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about. You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Hmm, but that’s quite similar to the current reason abortion is legal, and it’s one of the (correct) reasons sodomy is not a crime anymore. I think there’s a good argument that abortion should be allowed under the 13th amendment but that seems like someone would yell at me if I said that.
    - lemonlime 4y ago
      No, it is not. Lawrence v. Texas was accepted by SCOTUS for privacy purposes only to examine this extremely narrow question: “2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" To spell it out: "adult consensual sexual activity" is not even remotely close to "everything". You're also wrong on abortion. Directly from Roe v. Wade: "The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past." "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." Can you tell me where you got the idea that "it's quite similar to the current reason abortion is legal"? None of these are arguing everything done in private should be legal. Even the most extreme argument (not accepted by SCOTUS) is that things you do to your own body are protected. But if you do something (say, fraud), in private, no one is arguing you should have a right to privacy.
wbsss4412 4y ago
While it’s not a huge jump from the 4th amendment to a generalized right to privacy, you’re wrong when you say it’s not true, the fourth amendment does not actually say anything about privacy, it is at most implied. The fourth amendment, much like the third, was passed in response to an explicit practice that occurred during the pre revolutionary period, and sought to remedy it.
- Aloha 4y ago
  My non-lawyerly opinion believes that both the first amendment and the fourth amendment when taken together provide a decent foundation to a generalized right to privacy. Specifically when you look at all of the cases over time defining actions as speech. Is abortion a form of free speech? possibly!
  - wbsss4412 4y ago
    I am totally on board with there being a right to privacy, I was only responding to the facts within the thread. It’s a very straightforward jump from the text of the fourth amendment to a right to privacy, but at the end of the day, the amendment itself does not actually say there is a right to privacy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thevardanian 4y ago
  Privacy is about maintaining an inviolable personal space, and the fourth amendment is very explicitly about limiting state violation of the individual person, their property, papers, or effects. Papers in particular is important because it is quite literally in reference to information. To this day information has to be acquired legally in order for it to be admissable in court.

mpalczewski 4y ago

You failed at understanding the author.

whatshisface 4y ago
I don't think factual inaccuracies should get a free pass under the principle of assuming good faith, because the principle of assuming good faith only applies to how ambiguous claims should be construed. There is no way to construe "the constitution does not mention privacy" as a correct statement.
- SilasX 4y ago
  Yes, as "the constitution does not explicitly mention privacy" or "... does not mention privacy by that term."
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    "The constitution does not use the word privacy, although it does directly protect it," is not a reasonable interpretation in context.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      “The constitution does not explicitly use the term privacy but does refer to related concepts from which one can infer some logic about what kinds of privacy are protected vs not” is a reasonable interpretation in context … and coincidentally, exactly what the author is arguing, once you get beyond the quoted part. I think this whole subthread is being too hard on a snippet.
- rat9988 4y ago
  Op is saying there is no factual inaccuracy though. And I agree with him.
Jiro 4y ago
It doesn't say the exact word "privacy" or "abortion", but what it does say is a lot closer to privacy than to abortion.
- suture 4y ago
  The five axioms of Euclidean geometry don’t mention triangles and yet they are a big part of geometry. The five axioms of Euclidean geometry give rise to a vast collection of consequences. The U.S. Constitution is considerably more complex than the 5 axioms of geometry so one should not be surprised that concepts will arise as logical consequences that are not specifically mentioned in the document. This is especially so since the Constitution was not written with mathematical precision.

car_analogy 4y ago

Well yes, but as much as I am a proponent of both the right to privacy and abortion, the latter doesn't really follow from the former. Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. Nor is abortion necessarily private - one could declare one is going to have one, or one could be visibly pregnant and then get an abortion. It would be a bizarre law if abortion was legal only so long as you don't tell anyone about it.

lemonlime 4y ago
>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely close to what the debate is about. You have constructed an impressively bad strawman.
- astrange 4y ago
  Hmm, but that’s quite similar to the current reason abortion is legal, and it’s one of the (correct) reasons sodomy is not a crime anymore. I think there’s a good argument that abortion should be allowed under the 13th amendment but that seems like someone would yell at me if I said that.
  - lemonlime 4y ago
    No, it is not. Lawrence v. Texas was accepted by SCOTUS for privacy purposes only to examine this extremely narrow question: “2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?" To spell it out: "adult consensual sexual activity" is not even remotely close to "everything". You're also wrong on abortion. Directly from Roe v. Wade: "The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past." "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." Can you tell me where you got the idea that "it's quite similar to the current reason abortion is legal"? None of these are arguing everything done in private should be legal. Even the most extreme argument (not accepted by SCOTUS) is that things you do to your own body are protected. But if you do something (say, fraud), in private, no one is arguing you should have a right to privacy.

wbsss4412 4y ago

While it’s not a huge jump from the 4th amendment to a generalized right to privacy, you’re wrong when you say it’s not true, the fourth amendment does not actually say anything about privacy, it is at most implied. The fourth amendment, much like the third, was passed in response to an explicit practice that occurred during the pre revolutionary period, and sought to remedy it.

Aloha 4y ago
My non-lawyerly opinion believes that both the first amendment and the fourth amendment when taken together provide a decent foundation to a generalized right to privacy. Specifically when you look at all of the cases over time defining actions as speech. Is abortion a form of free speech? possibly!
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  I am totally on board with there being a right to privacy, I was only responding to the facts within the thread. It’s a very straightforward jump from the text of the fourth amendment to a right to privacy, but at the end of the day, the amendment itself does not actually say there is a right to privacy.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thevardanian 4y ago
Privacy is about maintaining an inviolable personal space, and the fourth amendment is very explicitly about limiting state violation of the individual person, their property, papers, or effects. Papers in particular is important because it is quite literally in reference to information. To this day information has to be acquired legally in order for it to be admissable in court.