- This topic has 1 reply, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In addition … The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the US guarantees: “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 oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.
The Ninth Amendment says that a right that is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that the government can infringe on that right. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”
We must always be vigilant in preserving our rights and when we believe they are being threatened we must question and speak up.
[quote=”sweikert925″]
[i]The depositor takes the risk, in revealing his affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government. [/i]From [url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15052729295643479698&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr]United States v. Miller[/url][/quote]
And that was the trigger that led to the birth of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 which is still in effect today.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]And that was the trigger that led to the birth of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 which is still in effect today.[/quote]
…And so is FATCA.You either didn’t read my previous comment or didn’t understand it. [b]An act of Congress does NOT supersede a Supreme Court ruling. The 2010 FATCA law DOES supersede a conflicting 1978 law.[/b]
But it doesn’t matter WHAT laws Congress passed, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional. Both the 1976 Miller decision and another in 1979 – Smith v. Maryland – remain the law of the land.
[url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&invol=735&vol=442]Smith v. Maryland[/url]:[i] …this Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.[/i]
However as I already mentioned, the Supreme Court MAY change its mind on this. If it does, you should be happy that President Obama put Sonia Sotomayor on the Court and unhappy that Reagan put Scalia on it. I’ve already pointed out how Scalia feels about the right to privacy, but Sotomayor wrote this in a recent opinion:
United States v. Jones:[i]…it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks … I would not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection.[/i][/quote]
And you surely didn’t read or understand my comment regarding vigilance. The issue always boils down to vigilance and speaking up when and where we see abuse (or possibly the intent of future abuse) … what you have referred to as “whining”.
Here’s a little true story, “Little Pixframe, age 4: “Ooh, Mommy, I don’t want to drink my milk, it’s ICKY! Bwah, Bwah, Bwah!”. Not so little Pixframe , age 40+, still doesn’t like drinking milk. Why? At age 20 she learned she had lactose intolerance. On many occasions there’s a very valid reason why one should (using your word again) whine! And the topic under discussion is one of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
