The Constitution is quite clear about the reasons for privacy, if you understand the reason for the Bill of Rights. The items in the list are not separate, as some think, but to be taken as a whole. Why? Each is one step in the puzzle that the colonists needed to overthrow the King. Search and Seizure? Remember Lexington and Concord? You can't run guns if the King can stop and search anywhere his soldiers want. Freedom of Religion? The pulpit was being used to foment Rebellion and then organize militia units, the CNN of it's day. Not house troops? Can't go to militia practice if there are soldiers in your house. It goes on and on.
Then again, most people don't know that Freedom and Liberty are very different words.
I read every talkback to the stories I write. All are constructive and I learn something every day. Thank you for your feedback. You all have a variety of different opinions, views, and interpretation of government law, regulations and authority as it applies to the use of the Internet and technology and politics. The debate on health care, antitrust, freedom of speech, liberty, Internet use, copyright and patent law are hot issues within this section of ZDNet. In this technology saturated world, one statement that commonly appears to pop up in talkback comments is the U.S. Constitution and how laws affecting our lives and use of computers, social media and other services are perceived as being attacked. This poses some interesting questions, among them, is the U.S. Constitution capable of keeping up? Will the Justices be able to adapt given the Constitution is 223 years old with a ‘few’ amendments. Will government need to establish new amendments to modernize how laws are created and established in an internet world?
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and A. Justice Antonin Scalia debated their views on a variety of topics surrounding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The choice of these Justices sets the stage for diverse and often opposite views. Points of argument put forward by both Supreme Court justices are compelling and worthy of your time to debate. You will discover that both have a sense of humor. The Justices are not your typical John Grisham novel jurists. They’re better.
Covered by C-Span, a one hour lecture records valuable insight on how the two Associate Justices wrestle with cases and interpretation of law brought before the court. I encourage you to take the time to listen to the program. The Justices take on very difficult topics including the death penalty, abortion, due process, liberty and freedom of speech (and Press). The Justices also tackle relevance of technology in today’s world compared to when the Constitution was drafted by the framers of the document in 1787. The discussion does not cover internet technology or social media directly. The discussion extensively covers how legislation is enacted by Congress and repercussions it may have on the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a speech at the University of Alabama that Congress has a duty to pass laws that are Constitutional and not rely upon the court to make such decisions. This potentially has significant impact on any bills going through Congress directed at the Internet.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1994. Justice Breyer is the author of a fascinating book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1986. Considered an “Originalist” by many law professors, Justice Scalia published Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. Leave your comments, which I have no doubt you will.
Additional resources:
When is an employer allowed to read your email?
Are the MPAA and RIAA out of their minds?
