3 ms·

I'm not sure about the UK but the US has the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which theoretically[0] provides this sort of protection. [0] Unfortunately, only

I'm not sure about the UK but the US has the 4th Amendment to the Constitution which theoretically[0] provides this sort of protection. [0] Unfortunately, only in theory considering how often attacks against that protection are made by US policymakers.

kmeisthax 4y ago
After Dobbs v. Jackson I'm not so sure on the implied right of privacy anymore, given that such a right was the foundation of Roe v. Wade.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I believe the defendant in that case argued with the 14th amendment: > (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Edit: I guess it's actually both. > Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- jasonfarnon 4y ago
  the "right to privacy" has nothing to do with the search and seizure-type privacy right. the first is a warren court-era development, patched together from due process, "penumbrae" etc., the second is grounded in the 4th amendment.
idiotsecant 4y ago
Everyone's a strict constructionist until they get to the part of the constitution they don't like. Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.
- notch898a 4y ago
  Kind of a moot point what you or I or even the majority think. The unelected judges decide the interpretations, and the courts decided the bill of rights are nuked because almost everything is interstate commerce a la Wickard v Filburn and the New Deal etc.
gpderetta 4y ago
In the UK no parliament can bind future parliaments, so, from a purely procedural point of view, any law can be overturned with another law.
- SimonPStevens 4y ago
  Feels like we need something more than just a national bill. Something like the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified into local law by each country. That would be much harder politically to overturn by the next parliament. Can't see it happening though.
  - _2uwr 4y ago
    It doesnt matter what laws exist if the public, starting at primary school, are not taught the law, not even a TLDR. Its just virtue signalling. And if you are not taught law, how can anyone claim to live in a democracy to debate the laws? Everybody is born into a legal dictatorship if you weren't taught law and with todays communication technology, there is no excuse for it. Its just setting people up to be victims of crime especially kids, its a criminal way to make people dependent on employees of the state who claim to be picking up the pieces. Secondly employees of the state are treated as superior to members of the public by the courts, which makes me think the legal system isn't fit for purpose here in the UK.
    - h0p3 4y ago
      The same is clearly true of economics and philosophy as well.

kmeisthax 4y ago

After Dobbs v. Jackson I'm not so sure on the implied right of privacy anymore, given that such a right was the foundation of Roe v. Wade.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I believe the defendant in that case argued with the 14th amendment: > (1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Edit: I guess it's actually both. > Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
jasonfarnon 4y ago
the "right to privacy" has nothing to do with the search and seizure-type privacy right. the first is a warren court-era development, patched together from due process, "penumbrae" etc., the second is grounded in the 4th amendment.

idiotsecant 4y ago

Everyone's a strict constructionist until they get to the part of the constitution they don't like. Fundamentally if we're ok with weakening some amendments through interpretation short of constitutional convention we should resign ourselves to the idea that we are weakening all of them.

notch898a 4y ago
Kind of a moot point what you or I or even the majority think. The unelected judges decide the interpretations, and the courts decided the bill of rights are nuked because almost everything is interstate commerce a la Wickard v Filburn and the New Deal etc.

gpderetta 4y ago

In the UK no parliament can bind future parliaments, so, from a purely procedural point of view, any law can be overturned with another law.

SimonPStevens 4y ago
Feels like we need something more than just a national bill. Something like the European Convention on Human Rights, ratified into local law by each country. That would be much harder politically to overturn by the next parliament. Can't see it happening though.
- _2uwr 4y ago
  It doesnt matter what laws exist if the public, starting at primary school, are not taught the law, not even a TLDR. Its just virtue signalling. And if you are not taught law, how can anyone claim to live in a democracy to debate the laws? Everybody is born into a legal dictatorship if you weren't taught law and with todays communication technology, there is no excuse for it. Its just setting people up to be victims of crime especially kids, its a criminal way to make people dependent on employees of the state who claim to be picking up the pieces. Secondly employees of the state are treated as superior to members of the public by the courts, which makes me think the legal system isn't fit for purpose here in the UK.
  - h0p3 4y ago
    The same is clearly true of economics and philosophy as well.