The Constitution's Bill of Rights Needs an Update: Article 12

From the Universal Declaration of Rights, from the United Nations:

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

This is a more lucid declaration of the right to privacy, and includes the word privacy, and is more open ended on "correspondence", and specifies "Home". Currently, the Bill of Rights is either weak, or impotent, depending on the case, with regard to protecting the human right to privacy.

For this reason, it makes good sense to update the United States constitution's Bill of Rights, to expand the rights of privacy in accordance with Article 12 (and only article 12) as the 4th amendment renders itself impotent several times, and hasn't been recognized as a legal right since security cameras were first approved for liquor stores and coin shops, decades ago.

Here's the text of the 4th amendment:

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 4th amendment, in the age of Post Patriot Act, is merely a law allowing the government and their police agencies to wantonly violate privacy, to ignore the existence of security measures for emails, texts, videos, and photos, and to gut the liberties of the people. It was supposed to be a shield for the people, but it is being used as a sword for the government.

a reply to: skynet2015

What is the exact verbiage that you would use?

a reply to: skynet2015

nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.

Now THERE'S a slipery slope use of wordage.

a reply to: skynet2015

There also needs to be an amendment that the rights enumerated apply only to human beings and living beings, not corporations or business, or artificial entities.

a reply to: skynet2015

I agree with this 100%

BUT

I have no trust or confidence in our Govt. At any level.

I'm concerned that if a Constitutional Convention were convened it would be hijacked by special interest groups and would result in changes we didn't anticipate.

"Nor attacks upon his honor or reputation".......That one line puts CNN out of business. a reply to: queenofswords

a reply to: skynet2015

"Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

"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 two words I highlighted are conditionals. Now if you take all other conditions that are not arbitrary, like structured, legal, legislated, targeted, etc. You find very quickly that the word arbitrary can be used against you by applying existing and new dreamt up laws.

Unreasonable, seems to imply a specific reason is necessary.

Cheers - Dave

the original forth amendment:

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.

Should have said "by the government, its agents, federal state or local". They didn't add the specific protection "from whom" because to them at the time it was bleeding obvious:

all the King's men.

a reply to: skynet2015

If you adjust or change anything in the constitution no matter how good it is supposed to be, it'll be a slippery slope to a complete rewrite. Politicians will all sign onto a slight change because it would then become historical evidence that the constitution has been and can be changed. America does and should fight to protect it as it was and should be prepared to defend it, remember the old saying "give them an inch and they take a mile" in this case it'd be "Give them one update and they'll take your rights".

a reply to: skynet2015

Is say, "...papers and effects..." Wouldn't that technically include private information?

originally posted by: skynet2015
against unreasonable searches and seizures,

There you go.

What on earth is unreasonable?

Could mean anything.

They used to be able to slip past us with their creative use of the English language ("it depends on what the meaning of is is").

The People are catching on. The Patriot Act, The Affordable HealthCare Act, NDAA, and a whole host of other "Acts" using language that obfuscates and confuses, and can have double meaning, were LESSONS LEARNED.

It's going to be a little harder now to bamboozle The People...(the ones that are awake, anyway.)

Remember, all written laws are suggestions. The people are the law.

Whatever the people accept, whatever the people do, that is the law of the land.

a reply to: intrptr

Should have said "by the government, its agents, federal state or local". They didn't add the specific protection "from whom" because to them at the time it was bleeding obvious:

At the time, it only applied to the federal government. The 14th amendment expanded federal powers to the state and local level.

On another note, I don't believe that the constitution ever enumenates a right to privacy. However, the much forgotten 9th and 10 admendments say:

9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, I guess that privacy is a right, just not enumerated. Well, the way the court has gone in the last century, the 9th and 10th are out the window.

Selah!

a reply to: intrptr

The Constitution was written as a framework, or parameters for the government to work within, and be limited by, to prevent infringement by government of the rights of the People.

It's a simple concept to comprehend if you study and learn what it was that caused the colonists to rebel against the crown.

The last thing we need is for the government to go in and mess it up as it is not perfect, but better than almost every other country on the planet.

a reply to: olbe66

At the time, it only applied to the federal government.

The Bill of Rights applied to any authority. They understood micro and macrocosm well enough.

Individual rights and liberties applied to nations as well as the individual. Another thing they didn't feel the need to define because to them it was obvious who they were talking about.

The whole problem was the Crown coming here with its soldiers and doing the same damn things they do in England, Thats why people fled Europe in the first place.

Look where we are today, our own government is doing those very same things to us.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

The last thing we need is for the government to go in and mess it up as it is not perfect, but better than almost every other country on the planet.

No its not. It has changed drastically over the centuries.

By the by you just try and disband the 'Federal' Reserve, own a machine gun, carry it in public, petition congress for redress of grievances. Thats a real short list.

a reply to: intrptr

The revolutionary war was over in 1783, the bill of rights ratified in 1791 – almost 20 year later. The constitution, as an original text, limited the federal government to raise armies, collect taxes, regulate trade between states. They could make laws “Neccissary and Proper” to carry out these functions.

The 10th amendment clearly states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government, not the states.

However, the Supreme Court has subsequently held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment under a doctrine called "incorporation. Prior to the 14th, per the 10th amendment, all powers not enumerated to the federal government were left to the states, or the people.

The 14th Amendment during the post-Civil War Reconstruction period resulted in a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Federal Government and the states. The Civil War had been fought over issues of states’ rights, particularly the right to control the institution of slavery. At this poing the 14th gave the federal courts the authority to intervene when a state threatened fundamental rights of its citizens, and one of the most important doctrines flowing from this is the application of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause.

Through the process of “selective incorporation,” most of the provisions of the first eight Amendments, such as free speech, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, are applied against the states as they are against the federal government.

The Bill of Rights has mostly been applied to the states. The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases has been held not to be applicable to the states, but the amendment's Re-Examination Clause applies not only to federal courts, but also to "a case tried before a jury in a state court and brought to the Supreme Court on appeal."

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: skynet2015

If you adjust or change anything in the constitution no matter how good it is supposed to be, it'll be a slippery slope to a complete rewrite. Politicians will all sign onto a slight change because it would then become historical evidence that the constitution has been and can be changed. America does and should fight to protect it as it was and should be prepared to defend it, remember the old saying "give them an inch and they take a mile" in this case it'd be "Give them one update and they'll take your rights".

Not sure how you missed it but nobody would ratify the originality constitution without the addition of 10 new amendments to it. This was proposed by John Madison in 1791 and the foundation of the first 10 amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, was drafted by George Mason. The Constitution has been amended a further 17 times since 1791. The ability to amend it is why the Constitution is often referred to as a "living document". If there were no amendments, black people would still be living as non humans in this country where they were once counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes.

a reply to: olbe66

Bill of rights was written in blood long before long before it was ratified. The process to ratify took so long because the Loyalists in congress fought against it. They wanted it left off, but traded it for life tenure of Supreme court justices.

It most surely applies protections to individuals foremost. Back then that was obvious.

So we disagree.