Does the Constitution guarantee a right to privacy?

[Schweddy]

I voted NO.

The Constitution guarantees a right to own property and to be a citizen.
You own your person so that kidney thing is gauranteed.

Privacy "rights" are implied through rulings of the courts.

 

[steen]

The Constitution guarantees a right to own property and to be a citizen.
You own your person so that kidney thing is gauranteed.

Then you also own your own bodily resources.

 

[Schweddy]

Then you also own your own bodily resources.

Yep, but wouldn't own a person that is inside you as they are equally guaranteed.

You knew it was coming. :mrgreen:

 

[steen]

Yep, but wouldn't own a person that is inside you as they are equally guaranteed.

You knew it was coming. :mrgreen:

And you knew that then it comes that there is no such thing as an unborn person, ALSO per constitutional rulings (several of them).

 

[RightinNYC]

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

And the SC overturns its decisions at an ever increasing rate, so I wouldn't put so much faith in the current interpretetion. It'd be better to base your opinions in solid constitutional principles.

 

[Kandahar]

I hope you are kidding?

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

Umm no. The SCOTUS may have the final word, but they can still be wrong. If not, there would be no point in debating the constitutionality of any issue that the SCOTUS had ever ruled on before.

 

[tryreading]

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.

Why don 't you read article six and you explain what it means.

 

[tryreading]

I voted NO.

The Constitution guarantees a right to own property and to be a citizen.
You own your person so that kidney thing is gauranteed.

Privacy "rights" are implied through rulings of the courts.

If a government employee is parked in the street in front of your house taking digital and infrared pictures/images of you and your family through the windows, you're okay with that?

How about if a private citizen is doing that?

 

[Donkey1499]

It doesn't say anything about wiretaps!

 

[steen]

And the SC overturns its decisions at an ever increasing rate,

Really? At an ever increasing rate? Would you mind actualy proving that weird claim?

 

[RightinNYC]

Why don 't you read article six and you explain what it means.

Article VI -

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

This means that the new government will pay back all previously held debt.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

This means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it charges the courts to uphold and enforce it. It says that no law passed can contravene the Constitution.

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that every judge is charged with this duty.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

All officials have to uphold the constitution.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No Religious tests.

None of that applies the bill of rights to the states. That is the purpose of the 14th amendment. This is basic constitutional knowledge.

 

[RightinNYC]

Really? At an ever increasing rate? Would you mind actualy proving that weird claim?

That was mostly a facetious statement referring to the current courts proclivity to take an activist role, but there is some truth to it.

Plessy took 58 years to be overturned by Brown v Board.
Olmstead took 37 years to be overturned by Griswold.
Bowers took 17 years to be overturned by Lawrence

There is now certainly a willingness of justices to look at cases that were previously sacrosanct

 

[Stinger]

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...

Then you support elimination of the income tax reporting we as citizen have to do else go to jail? It is the most egregious invastion of privacy government could engage it.

 

[Stinger]

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.

What does that have to do with privacy? Those are property rights.

 

[Stinger]

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

Which is a property right. If there is a right to privacy then the income tax system should be abolished immediately since it IS a violation of your most personl private information.

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

But that is not privacy. Privacy is what you own and what you do with and where it comes from and what medical proceedures you have, whom you borrow money from and how much, what you spend it on and etc etc etc.

 

[alphamale]

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

Yaaaaaaa .... the now gone and not lamented liberal legislative USSC said so, when Justice Brennan imagined such a right practically out of whole cloth, a tortured, completely unconvincing misreading of the constitution - probably soon to be corrected.

 

[aquapub]

Yaaaaaaa .... the now gone and not lamented liberal legislative USSC said so, when Justice Brennan imagined such a right practically out of whole cloth, a tortured, completely unconvincing misreading of the constitution - probably soon to be corrected.

Finally, someone from California who doesn't take shrooms before reading the Constitution! Bravo, sir. You managed to correctly assess an incredibly obvious reality about the Constitution. That shouldn't warrant so much praise, but considering how many people don't get it, it does.

The 4th Amendment is:

1) A protection of the states against the federal government,

2) A protection against the government using searches and seizures to harrass and intimidate people. No right to privacy was stated or even implied.

 

[tryreading]

Finally, someone from California who doesn't take shrooms before reading the Constitution! Bravo, sir. You managed to correctly assess an incredibly obvious reality about the Constitution. That shouldn't warrant so much praise, but considering how many people don't get it, it does.

The 4th Amendment is:

1) A protection of the states against the federal government,

2) A protection against the government using searches and seizures to harrass and intimidate people. No right to privacy was stated or even implied.

Now please explain the 9th and why it doesn't provide a right to privacy.

 

[tryreading]

Article VI -

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

This means that the new government will pay back all previously held debt.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

This means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it charges the courts to uphold and enforce it. It says that no law passed can contravene the Constitution.

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that every judge is charged with this duty.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

All officials have to uphold the constitution.

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No Religious tests.

None of that applies the bill of rights to the states. That is the purpose of the 14th amendment. This is basic constitutional knowledge.

Article VI -

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

This means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it charges the courts to uphold and enforce it. It says that no law passed can contravene the Constitution..

And it also says 'and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.'

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This means that every judge is charged with this duty..

Describes control over the states judicially, right?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

All officials have to uphold the constitution..

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

No Religious tests.

None of that applies the bill of rights to the states. That is the purpose of the 14th amendment. This is basic constitutional knowledge.

The question is, does the Constitution as a whole guarantee the right of privacy? If Article VI provides federal supremacy over the states, as long as the federal laws are Constitutional, and the definition of Liberty and/or Amendment X include privacy, then doesn't the Constitution guarantee privacy which the federal government can enforce?



Interesting info regarding Article VI:

FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW
History and purposes of these sections

A primary concern of the framers in drafting the U.S. Constitution was to balance power between the states and the federal government. One method of striking this balance was to give the states a measure of control over the selection of federal officers and, as a result, the operation of the federal government. Thus, article I, section 2 gives the states an active role in determining electoral qualifications for purposes of electing members of the U.S. House of Representatives; article I, section 3, as originally ratified, gave each state equal representation in the U.S. Senate and required each senator to be selected by the state legislature; and article II, section 1 gives the states an active role in selecting presidential electors.

Another method of striking the balance between state and federal power was to provide certain powers to the federal government, specifically divest states of certain powers, and reserve certain powers to the states. Thus, article I, section 8 lays out the specific powers, called the “enumerated powers,” of the U.S. Congress. Article 6, called the “Supremacy Clause,” provides that the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are “the supreme law of the land.” In addition, article I, section 10 prohibits the states from engaging in numerous activities, including coining money, passing ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and, with certain exceptions, engaging in war. Finally, the 10th Amendment further provides that “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.” These provisions establish the boundaries of federal preemption of state laws. Under the Supremacy Clause, if a state law is preempted by the U.S. Constitution or a federal law or treaty, the state law cannot be enforced.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/consthi/03consthiIII051.htm


Good debate on Article VI, Clause II, in North Carolina:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s19.html

 

[tryreading]

Finally, someone from California who doesn't take shrooms before reading the Constitution! Bravo, sir. You managed to correctly assess an incredibly obvious reality about the Constitution. That shouldn't warrant so much praise, but considering how many people don't get it, it does.

The 4th Amendment is:

1) A protection of the states against the federal government,

2) A protection against the government using searches and seizures to harrass and intimidate people. No right to privacy was stated or even implied.

I meant the 10th (Amendment), not the 9th.

 

[jfuh]

It absolutely gaurantees the right to privacy, which is precisly why the NSA warrentless wiretaps are illegal.

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

 

[Navy Pride]

It absolutely gaurantees the right to privacy, which is precisly why the NSA warrentless wiretaps are illegal.

Except in a time of war when the Commander in Chief trumps that authority......

 

[jfuh]

Except in a time of war when the Commander in Chief trumps that authority......

No such law trumps the 4th.

 

[RightinNYC]

No such law trumps the 4th.

Actually, that's not true. No constitutional protection is beyond all interference. It just has to pass strict scrutiny to impose on a fundamental right.

"Congress shall make no law abriging...the freedom of speech."

Seems clear cut, right? So how come we have laws regarding slander, hate speech, etc...? Because there is an overwhelmingly compelling state interest that contravenes those constitutional protections. And Bush is arguing that the compelling state interest in conducting these wiretaps overrides this proviso of the 4th in this case. I'm not convinced yet, but then, its not up to me.

 

[RightinNYC]

And it also says 'and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.'

...yes....?

Describes control over the states judicially, right?

No, it says the judges of the lower courts are bound by the same principles as the SC.

The question is, does the Constitution as a whole guarantee the right of privacy?

I would argue that it doesn't. Douglas disagreed with me.

If Article VI provides federal supremacy over the states, as long as the federal laws are Constitutional, and the definition of Liberty and/or Amendment X include privacy,

Amendment X doesn't deal with privacy, the only amendments referenced in the original incorporation of the right to privacy were 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14.

then doesn't the Constitution guarantee privacy which the federal government can enforce?

IF the constitution guarantees a "right to privacy," it can be enforced. What people keep missing is that the "right to privacy" found by the SC is VERRRRY limited. It's not at all a broad based right. Initially, it was just a right to private procreative decisions between married couples. It was subsequently extended to individual procreative decisons, and with Lawrence v. Texas, to most private consentual adult sexual actions. That's all it refers to. The other areas of privacy are covered in other penumbras, state/federal laws, or not at all.

Interesting info regarding Article VI:...

None of this deals with applying the Bill of Rights to the States. That was solely the province of the 14th Amendment.