NEEDS ATTENTION: Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?

[stepnw1f]

When I saw this posted by a troll on another board, and a red flag went up. The reason I was so alarmed was because I realized that there was a concerted propaganda effort on the "internets" to rewrite or reiterate what our Constitution stands for and how it protects our civil liberties. There is one line in this person's post that jumps right out at me. I have boldened that line of text. They (GOP) is trying to rewrite the Constitution, and I felt this place was the best to start formualting a response. This shit cannot go without a confrontation.

----------

"I felt that this essay was pretty powerful, and made some good, common sense points.  Just wanted to pass it along...

Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Well, I searched my copy of the http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Constitution.htm">Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right?

I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married - that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?

The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.

How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?

Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

This essay has been excerpted from PopulistAmerica.com
You can read the full article at this link:

http://www.populistamerica.com/does_the_constitution_contain_a_right_to_privacy_">link

Ready set go!

[Marie26]

1. Yes, it does

but the Constitution itself never refers to a "right to privacy." The Supreme Court has ruled that the other Amendments create a "penumbra of rights", including the right to privacy, that goes beyond the literal text of the document. So, yes, The Sup. Ct. does recognize a right to privacy, but it is different from other rights that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

[carl_pwccaman]

2. Implied....

But so inherent in the gist of the thing that you'd have to not be able to comprehend it, or have another agenda, not to understand it...

But it amounts to piecing together the general tenor of wariness about government accountability, limitations and checks and balances, and the bill of rights limitations of search and seizure, and the constitution's admission that there are other rights not expressly written in the constitution that are not denied

[Mythsaje]

3. It's a perfectly example

of how they've turned the Constitution around...it was meant to be a leash on of the government's powers, not a direct explanation of our rights. The BOR nearly didn't make it into the document in the first place because certain people were afraid that they'd use it JUST LIKE THEY HAVE.

[greiner3]

4. For me;

It's the part about no illegal searches and seizures that I imagine that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. Screw Alito and those other walking dead assholes when they refute a 'living Constitution.' If that were the case; then the second amendment would preclude the NRA members to 7' muskets that took nearly a minute to get off a second round and the US to 13 states along the Atlantic coast, among others.

[pagandem4justice]

5. The Constitution doesn't need the word "privacy" per se

As a matter of fact, according to Bartleby.com, the term most contemporarily used by the Founders was "privity," and it had a connotation (since lost) of being secretive or hidden, rather than the modern connotation of belonging to one person and not shared with others. So, we'd be looking for references in the Constitution to personal property or personal rights, rather than "privacy" per se.

And of course, the Constitution is *full* of those references! I think that in terms of "privacy" and the Amendments specifically, one could apply the following:

1st Amendment - choices related to religion and speech, to include written speech and electronic communication.

2nd Amendment - if the NRA wants to force this amendment to cover their right to firearms purchases, one can make a helluva argument (IMHO) that, given that firearms ownership implies purchase, that we have a right to purchase legal goods as we please (cross-reference 14th amendment with this)

3rd Amendment - quartering of troops in the 18th century was a way for the government to seize your private property and use it for the King's purposes. This may be able to be extrapolated to argue against the more "modern" eminent domain type seizures, for private or corporate use, or to help with arguments for your right to keep your private property free from government encroachment in more abstract matters.

4th Amendment - Search and seizure laws imply that your property is private *until* there is cause for a search. In other words, no one should be able to mess with your "stuff" until there is a warrant or probable cause...not because they "think" sneak-and-peek is fine, and NOT because "if you're not a terrorist, you have no problems."

5th Amendment - "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Aside from due process, the term "deprived" can be argued to mean much more than property seizure or imprisonment...If the government takes my private data and sells it or opens it to a corporation, I am being deprived of a piece of very personal property. Also, "liberty"...If I am being kept from marrying whomever I choose to marry, then I am being deprived of a personal liberty (freedom) for no cause that serves the public good, and without due process of law.

14th Amendment - Contains the same phrase as 5th regarding deprivation of LLP, but in regards to the States being disallowed from depriving people of rights not hinderend at the federal level. In other words, these state laws banning abortion should be declared Unconstitutional because of this amendment.

There are other interpretations of the actual seven Articles, as well as a couple of the later Amendments (especially in regards to voting rights), but this is just an example of how things can be INTERPRETED to argue for the right to privacy in multiple aspects of daily living, from a Constitutional point of view. YMMV.

[Just Me]

6. The "privacy" edict, I believe, arises from the prohibition against,....

,...unreasonable searches and seizures. It's been 18 years since I studied constitutional law and I was not, at that time, focused upon those rights (I was focused upon surviving law school with a newborn, by myself).

But, I can definitively say that, the Constitution was drawn up to protect the rights of "the people", not protect the government (in spite of certain immunities). I mean, think about it, the revolutionaries wanted PROTECTION AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNANCE when they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution.

Geez,....it's common damn sense,...but, those whose love of power/control are incapable of or rebel against common human sense.

[ddeclue]

7. The correct answer to this problem is actually the Ninth Amendment!

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

You have a LOT of rights not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights - including the right to privacy. The Ninth Amendment says that you are presumed to have a right unless the Constitution specifically prohibits it to you.

Therefore you have a right to privacy whether or not these Nazi Conservatives want to admit that the Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy (which it also does when it says you have a right to be secure in your persons, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure".)

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Popol Vuh]

8. Its all about the 9th and 10th Amendments

These two Bill of Rights spell out that the government's power is restricted to only what the Constitution grants it. On the other hand, the Constitution is not by design restrictive in the same manner toward individuals. Individual rights are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution is saying that individual rights are inherited human rights and that the list of rights listed are just rights by which all others are protected.

9th Amendment:

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



10th Amendment:

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.

[annabanana]

9. Why does the phrase "secure in their persons and papers"

ring a bell with me?