Saturday, March 01, 2008

The Right to Privacy

I went to pick up a prescription at the drive-through window of my pharmacy recently. The security cameras were taking my picture.

As I drive down the freeway my car is often being monitored by dozens of cameras.

When I stop off to get gas at the convenience store, the cameras are taking my picture there too.

When I go into my bank, or even if I just get money out of the ATM, security cameras are recording my every move.

When I walk through the mall, I am being constantly monitored.

When I go to my local Target, not only is my every move being monitored, but a TV screen displays my entry to everyone else entering the store as well.

If I go downtown, I will be monitored by cameras as I walk down the sidewalk.

When I go to the airport, not only am I being monitored, but my personal belongings can be opened and handled by strangers, often in full view of dozens of other strangers who are not even security personnel.

I’m not complaining, mind you. I personally like the fact that these cameras help to catch criminals and allow us to see road conditions before we even leave the house. And wild horses couldn’t get me on a plane that was not being protected by strong security measures.

My only point is that if we genuinely had a constitutional right to privacy, all of these cameras should presumably be unconstitutional, shouldn’t they?

The “right to privacy” is a farce, fabricated by the high priests of the Supreme Court to justify killing unborn babies. Now that the justices have created this new “right” they are free to selectively apply, or not apply it however they like.

The Constitution was designed to keep government in check and to limit government power. But when the Supreme Court justices feel free to read their own personal views into the Constitution, the Constitution can be twisted to mean anything the court (i.e. government) wants it to mean, and we no longer have any meaningful constitutional protection from govenment.

McCain has pledged to appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution according to the intention of the original framers. Clinton and Obama want justices to interpret the law according to their personal views (i.e. whatever happens to be politically correct or expedient at the time). If you vote for Obama or Hillary, you might just as well vote to tear up the Constitution because the result could pretty much be the same.

No comments: