|
PASSAGE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR PRIVACY AND REPUTATION THE CANDID TRUTH: Please understand, no US citizen possesses a right to Privacy. It does not exist in the US Constitution. It merely has been assumed to exist depending upon the Supreme Court decision you read. It can be taken away at any time by the Supreme Court, which is not elected but an oligarchy government Branch appointed by the establishment--be that the monopolies or the other wealthy individuals and organization . Some state constitutions grant the right to privacy . Nevertheless, under the Supremacy Clause the federal government , that is the US Supreme Court can declare any enacting state law "'unconstitutional.'' This necessitates passage of a US c constitutional amendment for Privacy and yes for reputation.
Please read following article. WITHOUT PRIVACY; LIBERTY DOES NOT EXIST THE TWIN BIG BROTHERS There are two BIG BROTHERS. One is BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT. The second BIG BROTHER CORPORATION. They are twins. They share the same mother---MONEY. The Title or Orwell's book should have been "1984 and 1984 - No you are not paranoid." Do Americans need or want a constitutional amendment guaranteeing their rights to privacy and reputation? Most would be astonished the right to privacy is not expressly written in the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, it exists. The U.S. Supreme Court, in many cases, has expressly acknowledged its certainty. However, its reality is purely a concept by inference. That is, by certain justices such as Hugo Black, and William O. Douglas, and others at various times. Others do not support any right that is not explicitly printed in the Constitution. (The Bedrock view)
Numerous academics would argue the fourth amendment implications infer a right to privacy. To some degree this is true. However, the fourth amendment offers a severely constrained structure of privacy. ."The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by both were affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be ceased.” (The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.) To the contrary, for the most part, the fourth amendment primarily deals with searches and seizures requiring warrants issued based upon probable cause. . This pertains merely to unreasonable searches and seizures. Although it does affirm the people are to be secure and protected in their persons houses papers and effects. It is not specifically grant the right to privacy as an itemized or spelled out right.
If there is one thing the American people are apprehensive about, it is the erosion of their privacy (the right to be left alone) particularly from intrusion by the private sector. made feasible by the computer Internet age and its instantaneous data processing and collection of individuals private matters. An uninformed public does not comprehend the degree their private lives and affairs, economic interest being recorded in databanks and disseminated with few legal restrictions between private companies with accessibility by government and police officials.
It has been stated the privacy of individuals in effect no longer exists. We have reached and Orwellian state of 1984 when big brother has orders in the process of taking over our lives. And big brother is not singular. But has a twin. There are to the brothers. One is government big brother. To be as corporate big brother. These two twins work together and influence each other, as is apparent by a mere reading of the campaign contributions given to all politicians by the special interests—the latter. The NSA monitors almost all of our telephone conversations. ''Project Echelon'' We are under constant surveillances by cameras almost everywhere we go.
Moreover, under the new patriot and anti-terrorist acts, the government presently can cross the threshold any citizens’ or aliens’ residence; and investigate their private information and papers without acquiring a warrant based upon probable cause. And, without giving notice to the person scrutinized. The only requirement being the person not be home. this search and seizures can be done on your suspicion along. Without the citizens being knowledgeable of what transpired in their domicile Rather,"suspicion” is the legal basis for such entries. This is dangerous since anyone can be suspected by anyone else based on appearances, or even malice toward others. This is a precarious development in law-enforcement. Which could be a major stride to the subsequent ultimate institution of a virtual American police state—the home of freedom and democracy.
This is just a latest illustration of the mounting government and private sectors infringements upon our privacy. If one does not enjoy privacy, then in all frankness can we declare they possess Liberty? For what America is, is founded upon freedom; which we term Liberty. Without guarantees of our fundamental human and constitutional rights, we’re not emancipated, but rather disenfranchised from Liberty.
The founding fathers had to select between two contradictory conflicting theories of government. Whether to craft a homeland either devoted to unlimited law-enforcement with minimal crime; or, a country, which first and foremost elevated freedom foremost over law-enforcement containment of crime. After a long struggle they chose Liberty. Sometimes a guilty man would go free. On the other hand, they thought, it is better ten guilty man go free, than one innocent man lose his Liberty. So, we determined America would be a Liberty society. An exemplary city on the hill, not a security police state. The founding fathers realized from history no such thing as security can be imposed by a police state. Rather, the opposite occurs. Instead, with all its shortcoming, we place our confidence in—the rule of law. Supported by declared constitutional rights.
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was very apprehensive our freedoms not be restricted simply to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So, Madison added the ninth amendment."The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other (rights) retained by the people.” The founding fathers were announcing human rights which all possess, inalienable rights, which are their birthright, not narrowly restricted rights.
Consequently, what are we to conclude regarding this relentless ever-escalating predicament? Is the political opportunity of ensuring privacy lost? Or, can something be endeavor, which may revitalize some or all of our privacy civil liberties. After countless years of study, I have concluded, we have no other alternative than to undertake the following. Enactment of an U.S. constitutional amendment expressly guaranteeing in writing our right to privacy and reputation. The authorship of this amendment must be founded upon Supreme Court case interpretations to date. In my judgment, the amendment should read as follows:"All persons possess the rights to privacy and reputation which cannot be violated by any government or private entity.” It is imperative the amendment be written precisely this manner of the following reasons. No. 1."All persons” is necessary because this is a human right, relevant not only to American citizens, but every human being. No. 2. Why the insertion of the term"reputation?” Because when the right to privacy is desecrated, a negative state of affairs transpires—the disparagement of the individual’s character. . In other words, if one loses their privacy, negativities about them are created, which caused the loss of the reputation. If an individual loses reputation one is transformed into a pariah—socially isolated—discriminated against by major corporations, banks, credit card companies etc. Perhaps even without their knowledge. Hence, privacy and reputation are inextricably coupled. Furthermore, it is essential for subsequent judicial elucidation, construction and review. No. 3. And why should the words"violated by any government or private entity” be incorporated. To simplify the multifaceted legal theory identified as"state agency.” Presently, other constitutional amendments permit the private sector to discriminate against fundamental civil liberties. For instance, you can be discharged from employment, for exercising your free speech rights. Because the First Amendment encompasses only the government’s infringements upon free speech. Employers’ and private industry have no such restrictions. The advent of the concentration of more and more wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer multinational corporations, it is imperative we incorporate the terms"by… private entities”. This would signify businesses, corporations, professional groups etc., the special interests, could not breach the individual’s privacy. Without potentially suffering a legal penalty or sanction.
But will passage resolve the privacy predicament? No. What it would achieve is: the federal government’s mandate to enact legislation to protect everyone’s privacy and reputation. This would oblige a transformation in the Supreme Court’s judgments regarding privacy. It would authorize us, we the people, with the legal ability to fight back; to reclaim, as much as feasible, our vanishing privacy. All citizens would be entitled to instigate litigation to protect; reassert and recapture lost civil liberties. Yes, there exists a great deal on unnecessary litigation in countless areas. Nonetheless, in this sphere, is one in which citizens have need of a right to litigate. Without this power to litigate, we are left to erratic and capricious whims of unelected Supreme Court justices.
The reality is, we have run out of time to retrieve our privacy rights. Immediate engagement is essential. It is up to us to act; not to tediously wait the time-consuming uncertain consequences of judicial review. For as our African-American citizens have learned, no one will bestow freedom, you have to fearlessly nonviolently demand it. Nevertheless, can such an unconstitutional amendment be passed? What is its probability? In the contemporary state of the average citizens indifference regarding things political. The odds of passage are not good. The politicians will be relentlessly lobbied by the commercial special interests, which will vehemently oppose passage. The disconcerting actuality is the special interests govern the government. They supply the money, which elects the politicians. Creating:"Government of the people, by the lobbyists, for wealthy special interests.” (The author)
Nevertheless, since 911, there has been a revitalization of the individuals desire for participation in government. As a result, if a sufficient number of citizens join together, and are resolute, over the long haul, to raise money and organize the passage, then, by holding the politicians feet to the fire, it will be passed. The question is: do the American people possess the will power anymore. Or, had they become so self-absorbed, self-indulgent to be incapable of public service? The question is of national character. Who are we, who have we become? Do we still believe in America democracy and its Republic? Do we love America sufficiently to join together to work unceasingly for passage? Or, are we merely flag-waving sunshine patriots who will wither over the long haul. I do not know the answer
On the other hand, after 30 years of travel throughout this country, I do know the American people. I believe, with the proper leadership, information and education, the American public will rise up to ensure the passage. As for our founding fathers. They are resolved change the world for our benefit. They risked everything. Are we willing to do the same? The answer resides in you. Benjamin Franklin Quote "Any man who desires Security at the expense of Liberty, is a fool who will receive neither."
|
