What will you tell the census taker?

[Trapper John]

In many places they're pushing toll roads. On top of the gas tax.

Private or public toll roads?

In NoVa, they're doing a project to implement toll lanes - never have so many been inconvenienced (during construction) for the benefit for so few.

How are the lanes managed? By RFID device?

With all the high-mileage and electric cars coming out, you will see the means of funding roads changing. Can't come from the general funds (need that for social programs & regulatory programs). So we'll end up with something akin to tolls or mileage taxes. I don't have a problem with that as long as the gas taxes used for roads are eliminated & replaced.

I think we're probably quite a way from mileage taxes, at least judging by the timelines for increased CAFE numbers. And there are certainly privacy issues to be resolved if mileage taxes are implemented that involve vehicle monitoring. But in the meantime, I'm sure the per gallon shortfall from more efficient vehicles will be made up for by a per gallon increase in the tax rate, so that the total collection stays up there. All kinds of things could happen, I suppose. With "smart" electrical metering, the electric utility could know how many KWh you're using to recharge your electric car and add a tariff/tax similar to the fuel tax tacked on at the pump...

 

[RJM62]

Or government could spend less money...

 

[wsuffa]

Private or public toll roads?

Public-private partnership on the Beltway. Public on the Dulles Toll Road. Private on the Loudoun Greenway.

How are the lanes managed? By RFID device?

Yep, toll tag. They haven't figured out yet how to select on the toll tag between carpool and non-carpool users.

I think we're probably quite a way from mileage taxes, at least judging by the timelines for increased CAFE numbers. And there are certainly privacy issues to be resolved if mileage taxes are implemented that involve vehicle monitoring.

Oregon is already floating proposals, including a gps in car.

But in the meantime, I'm sure the per gallon shortfall from more efficient vehicles will be made up for by a per gallon increase in the tax rate, so that the total collection stays up there.

I think increased fuel taxes are a political lighting rod and unlikely. Its regressive, you know, because the less affluent can't afford the more efficient newer cars (that's not sarcastic, it's actually the rationale used on the Hill and in several states that have considered higher gas tax). Its also one reason that the toll lanes around here are being dubbed the "Lexus Lanes" (hence the comment in my initial post about so many/so few).

All kinds of things could happen, I suppose. With "smart" electrical metering, the electric utility could know how many KWh you're using to recharge your electric car and add a tariff/tax similar to the fuel tax tacked on at the pump...

They could. Will they.

 

[Trapper John]

Public-private partnership on the Beltway. Public on the Dulles Toll Road. Private on the Loudoun Greenway.

I have seen proposals in various metro areas where the new tollways are a "pay for convenience" concept. To those, I say good luck, because in many cases, to acquire enough right-of-way to make more direct routes seems, from the hip, to be a very a very chancy proposition. But as a naturally frugal person, I'm all for someone paying $15 extra for the new road, since they'll reduce traffic on the old road, and just maybe I'll get there at the same time with $15 in my pocket.

Yep, toll tag. They haven't figured out yet how to select on the toll tag between carpool and non-carpool users.

Doesn't seem like an insurmountable task. But I'm hardly an RFID expert, either. We do have RFID systems here that let semis bypass weigh stations if they have the right tag, and the weigh-in-motion (strain gauge) system buried in the pavement gives the truck the OK.

Oregon is already floating proposals, including a gps in car.

That's invasive IMO. I wouldn't mind filling out a notarized annual affadavit ("under the penalty of law") certifying my mileage for fee purposes, but to have a snitch device buried in the car just isn't right.

I think increased fuel taxes are a political lighting rod and unlikely. Its regressive, you know, because the less affluent can't afford the more efficient newer cars (that's not sarcastic, it's actually the rationale used on the Hill and in several states that have considered higher gas tax).

Fuel taxes are and always have been are by definition, regressive. Agree that passing them is an uphill battle, just look at the upset a year ago or so when retail gasoline was $4.00/gal. Lots of P.O.'d people, not just the lower income folks.

Its also one reason that the toll lanes around here are being dubbed the "Lexus Lanes" (hence the comment in my initial post about so many/so few).

Pay for convenience? Might be worth a try, but I'm not sure you can come up with a workable proforma in a lot of cases...

They could. Will they.

Regulated utilities are pretty plugged into the political winds. I don't see that kind of metering as much of a stretch, especially if it's promoted as a "green thing" to the ones that ultimately get dinged for buying an electric car, and they can recoup the capital cost of the metering system via a rate case. Won't cost the utility a thing, and they look socially conscious in the process.

 

[weilke]

Or government could spend less money...

Oh heresy !

One of those extremists I guess.

 

[weilke]

That's invasive IMO. I wouldn't mind filling out a notarized annual affadavit ("under the penalty of law") certifying my mileage for fee purposes, but to have a snitch device buried in the car just isn't right.

Wouldn't that thing be convenient. Charge speeding fines right to the checking account, solve crimes without actual police work, a brave new world.

(commercial trucks in europe already pay their tolls that way, a gps logger that is read out via portal type devices along the major highways.)

 

[Trapper John]

Wouldn't that thing be convenient. Charge speeding fines right to the checking account, solve crimes without actual police work, a brave new world.

(commercial trucks in europe already pay their tolls that way, a gps logger that is read out via portal type devices along the major highways.)

A lot of U.S. trucking companies have data loggers and controls utilizing GPS and engine management computers that are being used in really neato creative ways, like penalizing drivers for not extracting the very last drop of fuel efficiency. That's why it takes 17 minutes to pass a Schneider truck that's on the left lane of the interstate, because they real-time govern them to 62.001 mph and the JB Hunt truck they are passing in the right lane is governed to 61.999 mph.

 

[Ghery]

Or government could spend less money...

Oh heresy !

One of those extremists I guess.

I suggested that to my state legislators as a way to solve our state's budget problem (created by spending too much money). They didn't like my suggestion. Maybe because I live in a district that includes the state capital and I'd be putting constituents out of work? Can't have that in a company town, now can we?

 

[Ted]

Oregon is already floating proposals, including a gps in car.

That would not go over well, and I know exactly what would happen to any ones installed in my vehicles.

It's one thing for it to be installed in semis where you're doing a job and getting paid to drive the trucks the way the company tells you to. However in your own personal vehicles? No, that's not anybody's business.

 

[ScottM]

No, that's not anybody's business.

Which is why attacks on rights of privacy are so important now. If they go unchallenged then stuff like tracking movements to charge tolls will be legal. BTW people's movements are already tracked by the government. Thanks to e911 your cellphones are location technology in them (GPS+TOA+triangulation) to help emergancy services know where you are when you dial 911. The government is also looking at this data for other purposes as well. There is currently no law protecting your right to not let the government track you. I think a good argument based on the 4th ammendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...) could be made and upheld. But no one seems to care. That is sad.

 

[Trapper John]

Which is why attacks on rights of privacy are so important now. If they go unchallenged then stuff like tracking movements to charge tolls will be legal. BTW people's movements are already tracked by the government. Thanks to e911 your cellphones are location technology in them (GPS+TOA+triangulation) to help emergancy services know where you are when you dial 911. The government is also looking at this data for other purposes as well. There is currently no law protecting your right to not let the government track you. I think a good argument based on the 4th ammendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...) could be made and upheld. But no one seems to care. That is sad.

So who is leading the fight against this stuff?

 

[Dr. O]

Big sob story in the news this morning is that illegal aliens are not returning their census forms in sufficient quantities and as a result some states will lose a congressional seat - NOT, of course, because this congress will quietly authorize the census bureau to use statistical calculations to maintain the THOSE seats representing illegal aliens...
However, if an under reported census area is in a red district, it's gonna be curtains for that congress critter...

denny-o

 

[Ted]

Which is why attacks on rights of privacy are so important now. If they go unchallenged then stuff like tracking movements to charge tolls will be legal. BTW people's movements are already tracked by the government. Thanks to e911 your cellphones are location technology in them (GPS+TOA+triangulation) to help emergancy services know where you are when you dial 911. The government is also looking at this data for other purposes as well. There is currently no law protecting your right to not let the government track you. I think a good argument based on the 4th ammendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...) could be made and upheld. But no one seems to care. That is sad.

Well, I already know the government is tracking me. It was made painfully obvious when the guys from Homeland Security introduced themselves to me in Kansas a few months back.

There are some cases where you are allowing yourself to be tracked because it is the only practical way to accomplish certain things or benefits you. The FAA knows where my plane is when I go flying most of the time since I'm on an IFR flight plan. It's a requirement to go through clouds. That's reasonable. So is my cell phone being able to tell 911 where I am should I wreck my car and really don't have much of a clue. The catch is, the rest of the time they shouldn't know, nor should they care.

 

[wsuffa]

I have seen proposals in various metro areas where the new tollways are a "pay for convenience" concept. To those, I say good luck, because in many cases, to acquire enough right-of-way to make more direct routes seems, from the hip, to be a very a very chancy proposition. But as a naturally frugal person, I'm all for someone paying $15 extra for the new road, since they'll reduce traffic on the old road, and just maybe I'll get there at the same time with $15 in my pocket.

Property condemnation makes obtaining the right of way easy. It's made even easier when it's a public-private partnership deal (govt provides ROW, company builds). The Virginia Beltway project will be built on the existing ROW, with some small amount of additional land taken by condemnation.

Pay for convenience? Might be worth a try, but I'm not sure you can come up with a workable proforma in a lot of cases...

For a rural highway, probably not. For an urban road that has congestion pricing with no upper limit, you probably can.... especially since most of the agreements for new toll roads contain a provision that prohibits the state from improving roads that run along the same basic route (state has to pay significant money to the toll company if they increase the number of lanes, eliminate traffic lights, or build additional capacity in roads along the route). In San Antonio, the proposal for toll lanes on US 281 would maintain the same number of "free" lanes, but would convert them to a "service road" with traffic lights, while the privately-operated toll portion would be expressway. Along the Virginia Beltway, it would prevent any expansion/improvement to Gallows Road between the Beltway and Tyson's Corner.

Oh, and many of these toll projects are backed by loans guaranteed by USDOT or the state. For the Virginia project, the private company is only at-risk for something less than 20% of the project. The rest is state funded or state/federally guaranteed loans. Easy to make a pro-forma work when you've got little at risk yourself (see: financial meltdown)

Which is why attacks on rights of privacy are so important now. If they go unchallenged then stuff like tracking movements to charge tolls will be legal. BTW people's movements are already tracked by the government. Thanks to e911 your cellphones are location technology in them (GPS+TOA+triangulation) to help emergancy services know where you are when you dial 911. The government is also looking at this data for other purposes as well. There is currently no law protecting your right to not let the government track you. I think a good argument based on the 4th ammendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...) could be made and upheld. But no one seems to care. That is sad.

Correct. And some in the TSA want to use that technology to track people within airports and on airport grounds. It's been used for some time: finding OJ Simpson that led to the slow-speed chase was aided by location technology.

So who is leading the fight against this stuff?

EFF and some other organizations. They have run up against the fact that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Big sob story in the news this morning is that illegal aliens are not returning their census forms in sufficient quantities and as a result some states will lose a congressional seat - NOT, of course, because this congress will quietly authorize the census bureau to use statistical calculations to maintain the THOSE seats representing illegal aliens...
However, if an under reported census area is in a red district, it's gonna be curtains for that congress critter...

denny-o

I read the story this morning, but I didn't see anything about the illegal aliens. I think the problem is with people who aren't filling them out because they think the government doesn't have to know. Contrary to the urban legend, illegals can't vote, so I doubt that they would have anything to do with re-districting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_mail_response

 

[ScottM]

They have run up against the fact that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.

I don't think that calling it a fact that there is no right to privacy is a fair characterization. There is most assurdely an implied right when one considers the 3rd and 4th amendment. The founders had no idea about what would happen from a technology aspect so of course there would not be a clear plain worded right outlined in the Constitution. But many would agree that the founders felt that the minimum intrusion of government into an individual's life was what they desired. The new frontier of constitutional law is about privacy.

 

[ScottM]

I read the story this morning, but I didn't see anything about the illegal aliens. I think the problem is with people who aren't filling them out because they think the government doesn't have to know. Contrary to the urban legend, illegals can't vote, so I doubt that they would have anything to do with re-districting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_mail_response

The article mentions that those states have a higher percentage of Latinos. Didn't you know all brown colored people are illegal aliens??

See you can tell by looking at people:

This is an illegal alien:

And this is a citizen:

 

[wsuffa]

I don't think that calling it a fact that there is no right to privacy is a fair characterization. There is most assurdely an implied right when one considers the 3rd and 4th amendment. The founders had no idea about what would happen from a technology aspect so of course there would not be a clear plain worded right outlined in the Constitution. But many would agree that the founders felt that the minimum intrusion of government into an individual's life was what they desired. The new frontier of constitutional law is about privacy.

I don't disagree that there may be an implied right (subject to USSC determination - or as some would say "legislating from the bench") but there is no explicit right.

The minimum intrusion argument is hard to justify in the face of other legislation (most of which has been upheld) by the government ranging from regulatory laws to taxes to border protection to the health care legislation. Playing the devil's advocate, one could further argue that privacy <> minimal intrusion.... after all, monitoring somebody doesn't necessarily intrude until the government takes action based on the monitoring.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that privacy is a new frontier of constitutional law, and I agree that privacy needs to be defined as a right, but given the current state of things privacy doesn't exist as a right. Subject to USSC rulings, of course. (this, by the way, is the same logic TSA applies with respect to the right to travel - you have no right to travel by any particular means, so you can be denied the ability to fly).

 

[ScottM]

I don't disagree that there may be an implied right (subject to USSC determination - or as some would say "legislating from the bench") but there is no explicit right.

The minimum intrusion argument is hard to justify in the face of other legislation (most of which has been upheld) by the government ranging from regulatory laws to taxes to border protection to the health care legislation. Playing the devil's advocate, one could further argue that privacy <> minimal intrusion.... after all, monitoring somebody doesn't necessarily intrude until the government takes action based on the monitoring.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that privacy is a new frontier of constitutional law, and I agree that privacy needs to be defined as a right, but given the current state of things privacy doesn't exist as a right. Subject to USSC rulings, of course. (this, by the way, is the same logic TSA applies with respect to the right to travel - you have no right to travel by any particular means, so you can be denied the ability to fly).

Phew, ok we are in agreement. I was a little afraid that you thought it was a done deal that there was no right and that there can't be a right to it.

 

[Ted]

Gotta love it.

Right to bear arms: "Well, no. We won't let you have them. Even if it's written in plain English in the Constitution."
Right to privacy: "Where does it say that explicitly in the Constitution? You know, in plain English."

 

[ScottM]

Even if it's written in plain English in the Constitution."

Actually it is one of the world's worst written sentences. It is surely a committee draft. The poor grammar coupled with emotion and tradition has allowed it to become what it is today, a mess.

Did you know that there are inconsistencies in the way the amendment was written in copies of the Constitution?

This was one version:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This version was the one in some copies that was then in turn ratified by some of the states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is as confusing as the let's eat grandma vs. let's eat, grandma controversy on facebook. One is cannibalism! The other is lunch.

 

[JeffDG]

Gotta love it.

Right to bear arms: "Well, no. We won't let you have them. Even if it's written in plain English in the Constitution."
Right to privacy: "Where does it say that explicitly in the Constitution? You know, in plain English."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

That sounds a lot like plain English and privacy to me.

 

[dmccormack]

Actually it is one of the world's worst written sentences. It is surely a committee draft. The poor grammar coupled with emotion and tradition has allowed it to become what it is today, a mess.

Did you know that there are inconsistencies in the way the amendment was written in copies of the Constitution?

This was one version:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This version was the one in some copies that was then in turn ratified by some of the states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is as confusing as the let's eat grandma vs. let's eat, grandma controversy on facebook. One is cannibalism! The other is lunch.

You're forgetting an important variable -- the "English" of the Second Amendment is interpreted by the Courts, no some FaceBook ranters.

In Heller v US, the SCOTUS determined the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

 

[ScottM]

You're forgetting an important variable -- the "English" of the Second Amendment is interpreted by the Courts, no some FaceBook ranters.

English is English and grammar maater not on the geographic location of where it is read. The simple fact is that there multiple version of the amendment and those version differ in meaning. This would not be an issue except that the different version, with their different meanings were voted upon by the states. Basically some states approved one version and other states another. I wonder if someone could argue that the 2nd amendment was never rightfully approved and should be removed? WOW that would get a lot of people wearing tinfoil hats!!!

In Heller v US, the SCOTUS determined the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

It was not all clear. Even though they did say it was an individual right, in federal enclaves, they also made it clear that regualtion, "reasonable regulation" was still allowed in the states. IOW they created a version of the 2nd Amendment for federal areas and allowed for the states to have their own version. It hardly clarified anything and I think in the long run will just cause more trouble.

 

[dmccormack]

English is English and grammar maater not on the geographic location of where it is read. The simple fact is that there multiple version of the amendment and those version differ in meaning. This would not be an issue except that the different version, with their different meanings were voted upon by the states. Basically some states approved one version and other states another. I wonder if someone could argue that the 2nd amendment was never rightfully approved and should be removed? WOW that would get a lot of people wearing tinfoil hats!!!

It was not all clear. Even though they did say it was an individual right, in federal enclaves, they also made it clear that regualtion, "reasonable regulation" was still allowed in the states. IOW they created a version of the 2nd Amendment for federal areas and allowed for the states to have their own version. It hardly clarified anything and I think in the long run will just cause more trouble.

Oh, please -- every SCOTUS case has "issues" due to the narrow focus on a case. It's not supposed to write laws (though it sometimes does).

But your concern with Heller is NYT wishful thinking -- check the number of suits that Heller has permitted.

 

[Ghery]

I read the story this morning, but I didn't see anything about the illegal aliens. I think the problem is with people who aren't filling them out because they think the government doesn't have to know. Contrary to the urban legend, illegals can't vote, so I doubt that they would have anything to do with re-districting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_mail_response

However, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some vote. Even legal aliens. Why? When I moved to the state of Washington and went in to get a driver license they asked if I wanted to register to vote. At NO time did ask or otherwise determine that I was a citizen and thus entitled to vote.

Oh, and to the original question - I filled out the form. No intrusive questions this time. They didn't ask for my income, or how bathrooms we have in our house or anything else that had nothing to do with counting heads (well, race doesn't have anything to do with it, but...).

 

[ScottM]

check the number of suits that Heller has permitted.

And that would be 1. The original suit itself. It has permitted no other suits.

Some suits have been made as a result of Heller by people who think that they might win their suits now. But those suits were not prohibited before Heller.

 

[dmccormack]

And that would be 1. The original suit itself. It has permitted no other suits.

Some suits have been made as a result of Heller by people who think that they might win their suits now. But those suits were not prohibited before Heller.

Again, you're relying on the NYT.

Here's a contrary opion -- with supporting facts: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10073

 

[ScottM]

Oh, and to the original question - I filled out the form. No intrusive questions this time. They didn't ask for my income, or how bathrooms we have in our house or anything else that had nothing to do with counting heads (well, race doesn't have anything to do with it, but...).

As I said earlier and I quoted the Constitution on this, they can ask just about anything they deem "necessary and proper"

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=584854&postcount=167

 

[ScottM]

Again, you're relying on the NYT.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10073

Hardly. I hav eno idea what the NYT has to say about this at all. You sure like to swing out and state that you know what people are reading. How did you come to think that you had this power of clairvoyance?

 

[ScottM]

Here's a contrary opion -- with supporting arguments for their viewpoint: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10073

Fixed that for you so that your statement would be factually correct. There has yet to be any ruling that support the partisan CATO institutes viewpoint. That laws such as the Chicago handgun ban were not immediately struck down, nor were any other, would support the idea that the issue is not clear cut nor decided. Some cities and village chose to go through a challenge and opted to repeal their laws through other means. The Chicago case is getting closer to trial so we shall see how it all comes out. But my view is that Heller is not clear cut. Thus far that is the case, it only decided one small area. Therefore, as I stated before, the situation is still murky and will likely to remain that way for sometime.

 

[dmccormack]

Fixed that for you so that your statement would be factually correct. There has yet to be any ruling that support the partisan CATO institutes viewpoint. That laws such as the Chicago handgun ban were not immediately struck down would support the idea that the issue is not clear cut nor decided. The Chicago case is getting closer to trial so we shall see how it all comes out. But my view is that Heller is not clear cut. Thus far that is the case, it only decided one small area. Therefore, as I stated before, the situation is still murky and will likely to remain that way for sometime.

It's as "clear cut" determination as has been available since the ink dried on the Bill of Rights.

Anyway -- you obfuscate and thereby ignore my point -- the SCOTUS determines what the language means, not some gaggle of googlers.

 

[JeffDG]

It was not all clear. Even though they did say it was an individual right, in federal enclaves, they also made it clear that regualtion, "reasonable regulation" was still allowed in the states. IOW they created a version of the 2nd Amendment for federal areas and allowed for the states to have their own version. It hardly clarified anything and I think in the long run will just cause more trouble.

To be clear, there are two distinct issues with the 2nd that need(ed) deciding.

First, did the 2nd encompass an "individual" right. Heller settled that issue as a clear "Yes"

Second, was the 2nd "incorporated" against that States. The Bill of Rights, as originally approved, applied only to the Federal government, not to State governments. States could, and did, for example have "official religions" (Episcopal for Virgina, I believe Maryland was officially Catholic). Since the 14th Amendment, however, most of the Bill of Rights has been deemed "incorporated" against the states. Heller could not decide that issue, because the case was brought in an area not part of any State (the District of Columbia). Another case has been argued now (McDonald v. Chicago) and will be decided in June that will settle that issue.

 

[ScottM]

It's as "clear cut" determination as has been available since the ink dried on the Bill of Rights.

Anyway -- you obfuscate and thereby ignore my point -- the SCOTUS determines what the language means, not some gaggle of googlers.

What do you mean by "it"?

I am not sure what you are trying to argue since the only thing that seems clear in Heller v US is that 'it' is a individual right. Something that other case law had supported as well. So that was hardly precedent setting. More reaffirming than anything.

 

[ScottM]

To be clear, there are two distinct issues with the 2nd that need(ed) deciding.

First, did the 2nd encompass an "individual" right. Heller settled that issue as a clear "Yes"

Second, was the 2nd "incorporated" against that States. The Bill of Rights, as originally approved, applied only to the Federal government, not to State governments. States could, and did, for example have "official religions" (Episcopal for Virgina, I believe Maryland was officially Catholic). Since the 14th Amendment, however, most of the Bill of Rights has been deemed "incorporated" against the states. Heller could not decide that issue, because the case was brought in an area not part of any State (the District of Columbia). Another case has been argued now (McDonald v. Chicago) and will be decided in June that will settle that issue.

Agreed. I think Dan is confusing a couple of things in his argument and is missing this murky point.

 

[dmccormack]

Agreed. I think Dan is confusing a couple of things in his argument and is missing this murky point.

No, Scott is intentionally shucking and jiving in the hopes of getting off point.

 

[ScottM]

No, Scott is intentionally shucking and jiving in the hopes of getting off point.

Whatever Dan! I'll see your and raise you

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I don't think that calling it a fact that there is no right to privacy is a fair characterization. There is most assurdely an implied right when one considers the 3rd and 4th amendment. The founders had no idea about what would happen from a technology aspect so of course there would not be a clear plain worded right outlined in the Constitution. But many would agree that the founders felt that the minimum intrusion of government into an individual's life was what they desired. The new frontier of constitutional law is about privacy.

Sigh! Where is William O. Douglas when we need him <g>
Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. See Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 1965.

Best,

Dave