slowshooter wrote:Since you apparently can't understand how to use "the goggle". I've done it for you.
Now go back under the sack you taint troll.
So what you're telling me is that a woman has a right to privacy which extends to killing a baby, but nobody else has a right to privacy which extends to NOT having their conversations recorded by the government. You're a fool. An intellectually dishonest, thoroughly lacking in logic fool.
Because of course, the interpretation of some very, VERY simple words by some guy means what you want it to mean, but the actual words mean nothing. In your opinion, does "unreasonable search" apply to governmental electronic trolling through every aspect of your life? Eavesdropping on all of your calls? Being viewed in your backyard by a drone? All these things are "reasonable"? As I said, you're an idiot. Although it shouldn't surprise me, since the same folks saying that it's perfectly ok "because the Constitution doesn't really MEAN that" also think that the Constitution doesn't apply to semi-automatic weapons, but does apply to the Internet.
You go to Scalia to support your view. Fine. Since apparently you believe that it's ok to choose the views of a Supreme Court justice, how about this one:
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States
You "living document" folks never cease to amaze and amuse me with your inconsistent application of that theory, and complete lack of logic when discussing it. It's only a "living document" when it supports your agenda.
some liberal guy wrote:Well, a Supreme Court justice said something I agree with, so I'll use that as an example instead of the Constitution