Constitutional Privacy paper And 2nd Amendment
Below you will find a link to an audio/radio interview with author Julia Angwin, who wrote Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security and Freedom. She discusses this book on the radio show known as “Fresh Air”. This discussion addresses the lack of privacy in our use of technology as it relates to the government and private companies. Legally speaking, there is a U.S. Constitutional right to privacy from the government, but not necessarily from private entities. However, private entities can be held liable (legally responsible) for violating contractual rights that guarantee privacy between the consumer and the company. Private corporate behavior is also relevant as it relates to the public’s interest in developing public policy (law) to regulate such behavior. And of course, the government’s role in identifying the behavior of its citizens has become very threatening to those who believe privacy from the government is a cornerstone of democracy.
Privacy Assignment
Please listen to the radio interview linked/embeded below. Also, read page 146 of the textbook to reinforce the content of the radio interview. Once you have done this, please answer the following questions:
What is the origin and history of constitutional privacy rights in this country? (Refer to Chapter #4 of the textbook for this question.)
With the migration of more personal information online via social networking sites, should Congress pass a law to protect citizens’ privacy online? Why or why not?
How does a right to privacy differ from our other constitutionally protected rights?
Does the use of online technology compromise (i.e., threaten and reduce) the specific constitutionally protected privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court? (Right to Die; Sexual Behavior; Abortion; Birth Control etc…) How could online technology eventually compromise these rights, if at all? (In your opinion.)
File is a written transcript Text book is We the People.
Undoubtedly, you are all aware of the many tragic shootings that occur in this country, unfortunately, on a more regular basis each year, it seems. Thus, the issue of gun control and gun rights is continually in the news. It is a political, social, legal and cultural issue. In the back of your textbook is a copy of the United States Constitution. Please read the second amendment. Based on your reading, consider the following:
-Was the Second Amendment’s original purpose to establish a militia to maintain the public order?
-Was “Militia” was intended to mean a police force?
-Therefore, is the people’s right “to keep and bear arms” was associated with the participation in state militias?
-Was and is the Second Amendment’s purpose was to establish a militia to maintain the public order?
– Does “Militia” was intended to mean a police force?
Please respond to the following questions on the assigned Discussion Board. (Click the link above.) Post your answers and respond to at least one other student posting. Think of the issue constitutionally and historically, rather than, whether gun control would or would not prevent future mass killings. Conduct a legal and historical analysis. Do not just “puff” on what you want or generally think. Inform yourselves. To that end, please see the video posted at the bottom of this assignment.
Are we, as a nation, interpreting the Constitution properly? Yes? No? In part?
Has the Second Amendment’s practical intent been eliminated by the existence of modern governmental resources to provide for state militias and a standing Army?
In your opinion, do citizens have more to fear from governmental power, or private citizens owning guns? Thus, how does the second amendment in the 21st century promote freedom?
Although the term, “strict constructionist” and “originalism” are found in Chapter #12 (and not the current Civil Liberties Chapter), how would these two terms affect the outcome of a constitutional analysis of the Second Amendment?
The United States Supreme Court has already made clear through its legal opinions that gun regulation is constitutional. If that is the case, why then hasn’t strict gun regulation been established?
