Does the Constitution guarantee a right to privacy? (1 Viewer)

[tryreading]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Amendment V
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

 

[Kandahar]

Of course it does. I don't see how anyone can read those amendments you listed, and come to the conclusion that the founders weren't talking about privacy...

 

[mpg]

Yes, obviously, but the SCOTUS insists that there are additional Constitutional rights to privacy that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. That's where judicial activists and conservatives disagree.

 

[Kandahar]

Decisions like Roe v Wade are bastardizations of the right to privacy, that were obviously NOT intended to be constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, the right to privacy definitely exists for numerous other circumstances.

 

[tryreading]

Yes, obviously, but the SCOTUS insists that there are additional Constitutional rights to privacy that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. That's where judicial activists and conservatives disagree.

So maybe the new appointees who President Bush is hoping will be conservative judicial activists will remove those 'additional' rights? Your wording implies that there are no conservative activist judges.

 

[FallingPianos]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Amendment V
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

i'd say that all those amendments imply a right to privacy.

I'm assuming this post is indirectly about roe vs wade. though I think we do have a right to privacy, I dont see what abortion has to do with that.

 

[tryreading]

i'd say that all those amendments imply a right to privacy.

I'm assuming this post is indirectly about roe vs wade. though I think we do have a right to privacy, I dont see what abortion has to do with that.

I'd say those amendments guarantee a right to privacy.

This thread is directly about privacy. Whether its guaranteed, how far it goes. Abortion will probably consume it, as it has already been mentioned twice and implied once in the first five posts.

 

[FallingPianos]

Abortion will probably consume it, as it has already been mentioned twice and implied once in the first five posts.

no doubt it will. its too hot a topic, and too highly associated with the phrase "right to privacy" no to.

 

[steen]

The right to privacy includes you not being forced to give blood against your will. It includes you not being forced to give up your extra kidney against your will, even if it would save another life.

And it goes further. It gives you the right to control the privacy of your dead relative's body, so that you get to decide if organs etc will be donated or burried/cremated.

 

[HTColeman]

I said no, as in it does not guarantee a right to privacy, it implies a right to privacy but it is by no means absolute. Nothing is absolute in the Constitution because it is so vauge, and they could be interpreted differently by anyone, I mean after the 14th amendment was passed, the S.C. interpreted it to apply to businesses, not freed slaves. It all depends on whos in power.

With that said, Vote or Die!!

 

[mpg]

So maybe the new appointees who President Bush is hoping will be conservative judicial activists will remove those 'additional' rights? Your wording implies that there are no conservative activist judges.

You're right. Judicial activism is less common amongst conservatives, but it does happen from time to time. Instead of "conservatives", I should've said "those who believe in judicial restraint". In this particular case, you have to be a judicial activist to believe that there's a Constitutional right to privacy aside from the rights to privacy that are in the Constitution. Removing that additional right would be an example of judicial restraint.

 

[Kandahar]

The right to privacy includes you not being forced to give blood against your will. It includes you not being forced to give up your extra kidney against your will, even if it would save another life.

And it goes further. It gives you the right to control the privacy of your dead relative's body, so that you get to decide if organs etc will be donated or burried/cremated.

The constitutional right to privacy includes no such things. Anything that can't be reasonably extrapolated from the amendments listed is not protected. In other words, you have a right to privacy, but that's not a blank check to push your own agenda down America's throat.

Warrantless wiretaps - A clear violation of the right to privacy, because the 4th amendment talks about situations that seem appropriately analogous.

Mandatory organ donation - Not protected by the right to privacy, because there is nothing in the Constitution that can reasonably be construed to include this in the right to privacy. (This may still be unconstitutional because Congress has no authority to pass such a law, but that's another matter)

 

[Navy Pride]

There is no blanket authority for a right of privacy in the constitution......There are individual privacy rights though...........

The examples Steen gives are ridiculous.........They are just common sense when it comes to rights of the individuals and are not in the constitution not should they be........

 

[aquapub]

Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.

 

[Kandahar]

Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.

It was also a protection of the individual against the federal government.

 

[RightinNYC]

While there many be an innate "right to personal privacy" guaranteed by virtue of being a citizen/human, there is no broad constitutional "right to privacy."

 

[tryreading]

Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.

The bill of rights also specifically protects the rights of people, and citizens. Individuals.


Amendment IV
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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


And the Amendments also protect the people from the states, and limit the power of the states:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


And Article VI guarantees the federal government the power to enforce these Amendments in the states, per the 'Supremacy Clause.'

 

[alphamale]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Does not guarantee a general right to privacy, but rather precludes warrantless searches in pursuit of finding criminal evidence, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Amendment V
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Nothing to do with privacy per se.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What this means has long been controversial.

Amendment XIV
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

If there is no federal right to privacy, and there isn't, then this has nothing to do with privacy.

 

[RightinNYC]

Considering that it has already been thoroughly demonstrated in four other threads that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the states against the federal government, not a protection of all people against any government, I will take it as self-explanatory why I voted no on this.

It was also a protection of the individual against the federal government.

Not to mention that the 14th amendment then took those protections for the individual from the federal government and extended them to apply them to the state/local governments.

Basically, take the constitution, and where it says "Congress shall make no law..." and the such, and change it to "Government shall make no law..."

 

[tryreading]

Not to mention that the 14th amendment then took those protections for the individual from the federal government and extended them to apply them to the state/local governments.

Those protections were already applied to the states by Article VI.

 

[RightinNYC]

Those protections were already applied to the states by Article VI.

No they weren't, that was the purpose of the 14th amendment: To take the restrictions already applied to the federal government and apply them to the states.

 

[steen]

Does not guarantee a general right to privacy, but rather precludes warrantless searches in pursuit of finding criminal evidence, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Taking my bodily resources against my will most certainyl would be an unreasonable seizure of my body.

Nothing to do with privacy per se.

If I am forced to give my bodily resources against my will, then my liberty most certainly is compromized.

If there is no federal right to privacy, and there isn't, then this has nothing to do with privacy.

And the US Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not, it disagrees with you.

 

[Kandahar]

Taking my bodily resources against my will most certainyl would be an unreasonable seizure of my body.

If I am forced to give my bodily resources against my will, then my liberty most certainly is compromized.

This is a gross distortion of any right to privacy that can be reasonably extrapolated from the rights in the Constitution. It's nothing more than stretching words beyond their intention to suit your own political agenda, making you no different than a Christian moralist.

And the US Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not, it disagrees with you.

And that proves what? That the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. It doesn't prove that the SCOTUS is right.

 

[FallingPianos]

This is a gross distortion of any right to privacy that can be reasonably extrapolated from the rights in the Constitution. It's nothing more than stretching words beyond their intention to suit your own political agenda, making you no different than a Christian moralist.



And that proves what? That the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. It doesn't prove that the SCOTUS is right.

they dont even have the final say. judges can be impeached.

 

[steen]

This is a gross distortion of any right to privacy that can be reasonably extrapolated from the rights in the Constitution. It's nothing more than stretching words beyond their intention to suit your own political agenda, making you no different than a Christian moralist.

I hope you are kidding?

And that proves what? That the SCOTUS has the final say on the matter. It doesn't prove that the SCOTUS is right.

However, what the SCOTUS says is the final word on constitutionality. If the SCOTUS declares something to be (un)constitutional, then it is so.