Internet vs. US Constitution
Summary: Will the Justices be able to adapt, given the US 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?
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?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
The Meanings of the Bill of Rights
Then again, most people don't know that Freedom and Liberty are very different words.
Simplistic
I would...
Thanks for writing.
Doug
Your mistaken
but if you waive those rights, for example, by signing or agreeing to some sort of policy. that is an entirely different matter.
Become the subject of a search warrant...
Hence the 4th Amendment...
Two words - Probable Cause
Hogwash!!
probably cause
need to do is say that you are a "terrorist
suspect" and they can and will enter your property
without a court authorization. There have been
several news reports of FBI/Gov't abuse of this
capability to get standard criminals. The problem
is that once you give up a right or something,
it's hard to get it back. Even with a change in
administration, the gov't hasn't changed the law.
unconstitutional
:'(
*edit to correct spelling
Waiving Rights
additional site, and sign the 'terms of agreement'
I know SOMEWHERE in there I may have "waived my
privacy rights in one way or another. Isn't using
ANY form of internet access 'waiving your rights'?
AOL, Microsoft, Facebook, Google... don't they ALL
have and retain your personal information...and IP
information in one way or another?
Simplistic: 9th Amendment
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I don't know how much more clear the Constitution can be that there ARE other rights than those explicitly stated. Doesn't anyone actually READ the dang thing!?
$
Read the Constitution
Unalienable Rights
the government to safeguard liberty. It is defense for
unalienable rights, not a statement of rights allocated
by the government to the people. The addition of
technological advances has not uncovered any new base
human right that I am aware of, so our founding
documents are as relevant as ever. The medium may
change, but speech is still speech and the government
shouldn't infringe upon it.
Where we have gone astray is by allowing government to
legislate every infinitesimal area of our lives. If we
had resisted the urge to control everything, and
instead left more choice to the individual, we could
have a streamlined government that might actually
efficiently accomplish the relatively few things it is
supposed to do.
Problems arise due to the public and private realms dissolution
in a public place, that conversation is
private, and immune to governmental
interference.
However, on the internet the private status of
interaction is not as easy to interpret. You
often end up communicating with non relative in
a conservative way of thinking; peer to peer
communication, which were traditionally
labelled as private have become so general that
having a stance considering them all to be
private is difficult to maintain...
Very well said
The problem is not with the Constitution or it's age but with our society. We continue to allow our "leaders" to ignore or misinterpret the Constitution to fit their agendas. The founders of this country left us a treasure trove of documents to use in order to clarify any questions with regard to the intent of any part of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers is a good start but there are many others.
Referring to a justice as an originalist is ridiculous. If they are not originalists they are not doing their jobs. Their function is to interpret constitutionality of laws as intended by the founders or subsequent amendments not to twist its meaning to further an agenda from either party.
It has 2 and only 2 legitimate methods for change, the amendment process and a convention.
Those that believe the Constitution is a living document are correct only in the fact that the amendment process exists, not that the Supreme Court or any other entity has the authority to just change the meaning or intent as they see fit. The process was established for a reason.
xnilo and newb6025 are correct
It specifically and intentioally limits what the Federal government can do. This is why Barack Obama has such a problem with it, because it "doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf" in the "issues of redistribution of wealth"
When the President of the United States, sworn to uphold, protect and defend the Constituion, believes that constituion to be a hindrance to his ideology, then we have a real problem.
read the commerce clause
Griswold v. Connecticut
1973, the US Supreme Court recognized that the US constitution protected a right to privacy from
governmental intrusion.
it did.....
Thanks for writing.
Doug