FACT: Regulatory changes under Clinton caused the crisis
I read just fine: I took your statement to mean that a right to privacy is not guaranteed by our constitution, which is how any reasonable person would have interpreted what you wrote, and is exactly what you just wrote.
And you're wrong about it not being guaranteed; I suggest you look up how legal precedent works and how it applies when it's a precedent set by the Supreme Court. Protection against illegal searches means that your privacy is protected against the federal government.
Now, does that apply to private entities? Not necessarily. Is it a general "right to privacy"? No, it's not. Is it a type of right to privacy? Yes, it is.
do we both ask questions and then awnswer them our selfs? yes yes we do 
yes past presidence but that is not law they can go back and undo what has been done
segrigation
abortion
ect ion
interpritation can be a slipery slope
one supreme court may see it one way another may see it another way

yes past presidence but that is not law they can go back and undo what has been done
segrigation
abortion
ect ion
interpritation can be a slipery slope
one supreme court may see it one way another may see it another way
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lickwid
Bay Area
21
Aug 4, 2009 07:19 PM
silentmark
Legacy General
2
Jul 16, 2006 07:18 PM



