Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How, exactly, is there a right to privacy here?

MA refuses to divulge state aid numbers for Tsarnaev brothers.

Food Stamps? Sorry, can't tell you.
Cell phones? Nope - that's private.
Section 8 Housing? Can't comment on that.
EBT Cards? Private information, that.
Financial Aid? Confidential.

So, if I understand this correctly, the government forces taxpayers to lay bare their personal information regarding wealth and earnings. After this, they confiscate whatever portion they deem proper, and give this to others who want to kill, maim, and injure the very people from whom they just received the funds. And the government then makes all such records of receiving the funds, private?

Can anyone on the left attempt to justify this with a straight face?

When I get ahold of a time machine, I shall bring Mssrs. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, et. al., to the current day, so that they can BITCH SLAP the legislators and administrators who have so cruelly bastardized the system that was so carefully constructed 230+ years ago.

FC

Find one with a seat for two - so I can go with ya..

I'm in for a one way ticket...

I need to bring my wife and sons

Snake

The founding fathers you mentioned, may not see things exactly as you do regarding these and many of the current events. You need to read some of the private letters and papers of these guys. You will be surprised as to how they felt about policies that can/do apply to current events.
Washington did not see where the nation needed a bill of rights. He did not object to them and went along with them because he, as the others involved in the Constitution Convention were ready to go home. They, had been in Philadelphia since early 1787 and by time the BoR came up it was September and everyone was ready to go home. The BoR was not adopted as we know it until some years.
later.

I can understand it. As an example, you wouldn't want others looking into your medical history to determine if you could purchase a firearm; oops, bad example..

Some of the Founding Fathers thought the Bill of Rights was not necessary. As they thought, "we're creating a government of limited powers that only has the powers we give it in the Constitution. Logically, the powers we don't give the government remain with the people. Everybody knows that. Therefore a Bill of Rights is unnecessary."

Others thought, Patrick Henry and George Mason among them, "not so fast. We're creating a much stronger federal government than under the Articles of Confederation. We need to be absolutely clear about a few things as we have recently seen what a strong central government can do to its citizens." Some delegates to the Philadelphia Convention would not sign on to the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. Some colonies would not ratify without at least the assurance that the Bill of Rights would follow in do course.

Wonder of wonders, politicians back then actually did some things they said they would do. Roughly 6 months after the Constitution went into effect (March 4, 1789) our first Congress formally proposed the Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789. Ratification by 3/4's of the states came on December 15, 1791.

No founder was against the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Some merely thought listing them to be unnecessary. Given what the federal government is doing today, personally I am glad some natural rights were enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I'm also glad we have the 10th amendment stating, in effect, any rights we omitted to write down are retained by the states or the people.

FC One of the best posts ever. Thanks

only if they want em private

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

I hear what you're saying.

Tsarnaev is an American citizen with all rights afforded under the Constitution and the laws of the land. As of now, he's under arrest, accused of a crime and is innocent until proven guilty.

He's a freakin' radical islamic murdering terrorist that's undeniably guilty and it sucks but that's how it is.

When you start making exceptions all of us have our rights put in jeopardy.

Here's the flip side of it.

The Boston Herald made the request for his private and personal information and was denied. That doesn't mean the information won't be requested by the prosecution during his trial and then made public. I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure about it.

There is, and there should be, limits on the information that news agency can receive from govt. They have no more right to pry into person's info than you or I do.

Here's another possibility.

If they execute the little bastid there won't be any need to protect his rights.





Oops. I made a mistake in my earlier posts. They should release the records of the dead terrorist brother.

Personally I think making the little jihadi rot in prison for the next sixty plus years is a fate worse than death. Let him keep the privacy in a 6 x 8 cell, with a roomate.

Why did they have to have an amendment to the constitution so they could charge income tax but seem to be able to charge any other tax without restraint?

But it's okay to turn over to news papers the list of all gun owners.

Interesting times...

Because the government said so, that's why.
Question it/them and you'll end up on watch lists...
and worse, labelled a tea party RACIST!

the Feds have everything. they're just not telling us lowly commoners everything.

we are safe. ok?

Problem is, the 'legal system' treats the 10 amendment as a joke, for the most part.

It should be considered one of the greatest, but lawyers have less sway over our rights if it is followed.

I'd respond by saying that my medical history wasn't taken from others & given to me. As such, it's my business.

When others are required to pay for my lifestyle, then I believe my lifestyle does become their business. That's why I've got a problem with food stamps being used for steaks & junk food, and with EBT cash withdrawals being made in strip joints.

My wife was required by her school to translate for a family at the student's home. Mom & daughter had iPhones, daughter had an iPad, Mom had the iMac with the HUGE screen, and a Coach purse. They were receiving food stamps. And free preschool tuition. And they're illegal.

As mad as it makes me, I often wish it weren't my business.

FC

Apparently the joke went right over a few folks head, not surprising really.