3rd period Symposium
For those of you who were absent or didn't get the opportunity to have your voice heard, feel free to post your thoughts. I am going to allow you to ask a question or two but then I would also like you to respond to other people's questions as well. I will accept comments through 3:03 PM on January 4th.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 10:26 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
1 .In chapter four there is a brief discussion on the rights to privacy and the possibility of extending the Bill of Rights with a Privacy Amendment. Do you think such an amendment should be passed, meaning that people would have a constitutional right to some privacy? If so, what would be the limits of a person’s privacy, and how could a person determine whether their privacy is constitutionally protected. Also, if such an amendment were to be passed what would be the effect on things such as red light cameras and security cameras or the internet?
2. Throughout American history there are numerous examples of where person’s individual rights such as free speech have been legally abridged. Should the government be able to abridge a person’s “inalienable rights”? If so, what are the limits of the government’s control, and do you think that the government’s control over individual rights should be increased to promote safety for all or decreased to benefit individual freedom?
-Sam Bellows
Who knows what the limits would be? The government right now can access anything they want with all the technology thats up and coming.There's more to worry about and to have to keep an eye. It would be interesting if there was a bill past about people's privacy. Couldn't a violation be, that when in the airport that the employees check your bag?
Isn't all the sercurity equiment to protect us anyways?
In the news there has been talk about the Supreme Court making a statement on gay marriage (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-12/opinions/35789142_1_doma-defense-of-marriage-act-marriage-equality). If it does so, on what cases would it fall back on as precedents and how do you think it would go about making a decision?
- Dimitra Andreadaki
(In response to Anna Riley)
Does it come down to how much the government has the authority to invade privacy for the sake of our protection? As far as airport security, that invasion of privacy has not shown to have had much effect on our overall safety although it continues.
Dimitra Andreadaki
In response to Dimitra’s comment on gay marriage, I think that there will be a number of cases and past precedents that come into play in the Supreme Court’s decision. To begin with, part of the decision that the Court will address will be the Court’s definition of marriage and whether civil unions and marriage can be seen as equal. If the Court supports gay marriage, they will most likely support it with the 14th Amendment, mentioning that barring gay marriage denies people the privilege to marry or the Court might even reference a case such as Brown v. Board of Education, as they could note that marriage and civil unions are an example of “separate but equal” institutions.
-Sam Bellows
It would be tough to set limits for privacy, since everyone has their own opinions about what is acceptable and what is not. How do you determine the extent of privacy in such a way that everyone can agree to? With information as easily accessible as Anna was saying, how do ensure that privacy is protected? There is no one right way to deal with this issue and conflicting viewpoints would make it very hard to come up with a compromise.
How is it possible for a law to be different in a state and in the country as a whole? For example, in a few states now, including Colorado, it is legal to smoke marijuana; however, in the United States as a whole this is illegal. I’ve heard stories of the federal officers arresting official sellers of medical marijuana in states where that was legal before. How does this work in the court system? Would it just mean that sellers would be charged in federal courts instead of state courts, and if so what’s the point? I mean how do the new state amendments give any more power or freedom regarding this issue?
In regards to privacy it really is another example of a social contract; how much freedom, or privacy in this case, do the individual citizens of our country want to give up for the good of society, or protection from crime and terrorism? In America this specific issue is already partially addressed in the Bill of Rights. In the fourth amendment it is established that the government does not have the right to enact “unreasonable searches or seizures” against anyone without probable cause. In courts this should be good evidence that privacy was intended to be constitutional already without adding another amendment. The questions now are: should we redefine “probable cause” or does it apply well and specifically enough in the modern era with all of its new technology? Also, what counts as an individual’s specific privacy? Sam used the examples of a red light camera and the internet, do those really belong to an individual; when is some an individual’s private matter and when does it become public domain?
~Danny Luedtke
In response to Danny, I think that there are a number of ways that the conflict between state and national government laws could be solved. The easiest would be to make an Amendment to the constitution, and by the Supremacy Clause the states would be bound to follow those laws. Another way would be for the Supreme Court to rule the new laws unconstitutional, thus voiding them. Lastly, the government could decide that through the 10th Amendment that what drugs are legalized is a decision of the state. Whichever way the government decides to go, I think the issue will have to be resolved because the laws do seem to be in contact.
With respect to privacy, while the Constitution does imply privacy, because privacy is not explicitly stated in an Amendment the limits surrounding personal privacy are up to the government to decide based on outside factors such as, like Danny mentioned, terrorism. So I guess a better question to ask is it better to always be guaranteed privacy, which would advocate the creation of a new Amendment, or to allow the government to keep having flexibility with regard to the situation, which would work best if things are left how they are.
-Sam Bellows
In response to Hannah, I don’t think that Supreme Court decisions should be televised because by having them not televised the Justices are more insulated from the people, like the founding fathers intended. If they were televised the Justices might be more inclined to rule a decision based on what the people might want rather than what the law states. Also, I feel that the opinions the Justice’s write adequately explain their reason behind the ruling so televising their decision process would not really serve an educational purpose but rather an entertainment purpose.
-Sam Bellows
Sam, those are good ways the federal government could address this, yes, but what is happening in the meantime? For example, if nothing changes do federal officers have the right now to arrest marijuana dealers in those states? Also I know this doesnt really apply here, but I'm still kind of unsure; when does the full faith and credit clause of the comstitution apply and when can states basically ignore the rulings of other states? I know there are several cases they can I just don't know if there's a certain condition that needs to be met to do so.
Danny luedtke
In response to Sam's response to Hannah, is it really good to insulate them completely? Times change, and the job of the supreme court justices is to use interpretations of The constitution to make rulings for the good of the current people. That being said the people may influence the court, if there was less insulating the Justices from the want of the people, in ways that would not be for their best good or in ways that go against the intentions of the framers of the constitution. So overall, I agree, the supreme court justices should remain insulated to an extent from the will of the people. Although I might argue that serving for life may insulate them too much.
Also that was me.
~Danny luedtke
Response to sam's question 1: The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. But in the Bill of Rights the framers reflect the concern protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs in the first Amendment, and the privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers which is in the third Amendment. The 14th Amendment has a privacy clause so that the Judges can intemperate the Rule in modern times. Americans like privacy because it is another freedom to enjoy. Your examples you gave for things that might be infringing on this right are ones that would be on the gate between what is okay and what isn't. The judges are here once again to interpret and decide what the outcome should be.
-Tim Lindquist
In response to anna's
I remember a few years back when the iphone saved Cache of your location with out you knowing it. I'm not sure why apple put that in there, maybe for inside development to better improve their product, but in the end they were getting into trouble for it, a lot of people felt they lost their privacy. Must of the privacy infringements are there to better us just like the airport situation you gave.
-Tim Lindquist
What are the constitutional requirements of the Judicial Branch?? In the constitution i remember it saying that there would be a "supreme court", how have the sub sectors like state and district courts be developed over time?
-Tim Lindquist
A quick question do you think that Supreme Court Judges will ever have a term limit
Post a Comment
<< Home