The right to privacy is a constitutionally protected human right.
It requires a warrant to invade the privacy of another human being.
Richard Barry has complied with financial disclosure law in every respect. Yet there are those who demand the opportunity to rummage around in his private life as well.
They claim "a right to know".
What about Richard Berry's constitutionally protected human right to privacy? Where is their warrant to invade his privacy?
Why is Richard Berry accountable to a higher standard of conduct than the law? In particular since no higher standard of conduct than the law, would warrant the invasion of his privacy either.
If they are not a stakeholders in Richard Berry's private life,
they do not have standing to ask him questions about his private life.
The premise for the "right" to invade his privacy is,
Berry needs to prove that he is "trustworthy", and the only
way he can do that is to expose his private papers.
The necessity of his trustworthiness stems from the fact that
the only thing we have to protect us from being screwed over
by politicians and public servants, is our trust that they won't.
If the interest is in protecting the public interests, our trust
and our treasure, "trusting" politicians and public servants
runs a far distant second to transparent accountability
to meaningful standards of conduct and competence
during public service.
If there are adequate standards of conduct and competence
and if those standards are adequately enforced, trust
no longer plays. It doesn't make any difference whether they
can be "trusted" or not.
Casinos do not "trust" their employees. Banks do not "trust"
their employees. They simply make it impossibly difficult to steal.
It can be made impossibly difficult to steal tax dollars without getting caught.
It can be made impossibly difficult to engage in cronyism and pay to play, without getting caught.
When we know the whole truth about their public service,
their private lives become inconsequential.
Public servants have a right privacy. Their right is specifically
and explicitly protected by
the Constitution of the United States of America.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How much clearer can it be?
Show him your warrant.
photo Mark Bralley
4 comments:
Berry isn't required to show his tax returns, but the media is not barred from asking from asking for the records anyway. You may have heard of the first amendment which allows the freedom of the press.
And since Berry has spent the entire campaign bragging about his business acumen, these are reasonable questions from the media.
This kind of reasoning from you shows how much of a political neophyte you are. Perhaps you should take a look at how politics actually works when you try to talk about politics, since your constant praise of Janice Arnold-Jones (despite the fact that she has never done anything for ethics reform besides web casting) and attacks of Martin Chavez shows how much of a political neophyte you truly are.
The right to do something, does not make it right to do something. Ethics 101
Clearly, you don't know Janice Arnold-Jones.
Chavez has had twelve years to end the culture of corruption in City Hall and has not . Even a neophyte can see that.
Thanks for stopping by.
Am I to take Berry's word that he is honest? He goes around claiming to be/own/do what he says and under closer inspection there are all kinds of gaps. Have him explain why 2 construction companies. One minority/female owned and the other? His integrity is in question if he is using the minority and female owned to generate contracts. I will quote you.
"The right to do something, does not make it right to do something. Ethics 101"
Am I to take Berry's word that he is honest?
Absolutely not, anymore that you would take Marty Chavez' or Richard Romero's.
You've missed the point of the piece; it can be made impossibly difficult to hide corruption.
We need to elect the candidate who has the best plan to end public corruption and incompetence in public service.
I would vote for Chavez if he had the best plan and no way to weasel out of it.
The law determines what any candidate has to reveal. If you want stiffer laws, you must pass them before you can enforce them.
Perhaps you did not read my piece where I pointed out that the only real question here is; is he scamming the government in the choice of words that he uses to describe the ownership of the business. That I am supposing is more badly written law.
I would suggest that there is no legitimate agenda that does not move forward on the day there is transparent accountability in government.
I would suggest that your agenda is advanced by joining me in voting for the candidate with the best plan.
Right now, Berry strikes me as the more likely of the three, to actually end the culture of corruption in City Hall.
As always, I will bow to controverting evidence.
Post a Comment