Constitutional right to privacy

[CrimsonWhite]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. 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.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

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

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.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Yep. I think you're right.

 

[Valerie]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. 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.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

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

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.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

Don't forget the 4th Amendment!

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.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Funny thing is, is that this is a strict constructionalist view. The idea that the Constitution is about what government can do and not what people can do.

 

[manifold]

So what if the state government wants to invade your privacy?

 

[Ravi]

Funny thing is, is that this is a strict constructionalist view. The idea that the Constitution is about what government can do and not what people can do.

I thought it was about what the government can't do?

 

[manifold]

Funny thing is, is that this is a strict constructionalist view. The idea that the Constitution is about what government can do and not what people can do.

I thought it was about what the government can't do?

I think it covers both.

But according to CW's logic, it appears that the airport scanners would be fine as long as they're run by the state and not the federal government. And since I don't think he believes that, I'm interesting in how he goes about arguing it away.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So what if the state government wants to invade your privacy?

Supremacy Clause. The state cannot infringe on a right that the federal government protects.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Funny thing is, is that this is a strict constructionalist view. The idea that the Constitution is about what government can do and not what people can do.

I thought it was about what the government can't do?

I think it covers both.

But according to CW's logic, it appears that the airport scanners would be fine as long as they're run by the state and not the federal government. And since I don't think he believes that, I'm interesting in how he goes about arguing it away.

Supremacy clause.

Article VI, Paragraph 2

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

 

[Ravi]

So, CW...the states' cannot outlaw or allow what the federal government protects...and the federal government can only limit what they are authorized to limit and no more (All legislative powers herein granted shall...which means we, the people give the federal government these powers and no others)...am I reading that correctly?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

So, CW...the states' cannot outlaw or allow what the federal government protects...and the federal government can only limit what they are authorized to limit and no more (All legislative powers herein granted shall...which means we, the people give the federal government these powers and no others)...am I reading that correctly?

Yes, conundrums abound, but yes.

 

[Ravi]

So, CW...the states' cannot outlaw or allow what the federal government protects...and the federal government can only limit what they are authorized to limit and no more (All legislative powers herein granted shall...which means we, the people give the federal government these powers and no others)...am I reading that correctly?

Yes, conundrums abound, but yes.

I don't want to throw this off topic, but how can states regulate abortion, gay marriage, etc?

 

[manifold]

So what if the state government wants to invade your privacy?

Supremacy Clause. The state cannot infringe on a right that the federal government protects.

But that contradicts your whole opening argument. You claim the Constitution spells out what the federal govt. CAN do, and because it doesn't say they can invade your privacy, they can't. It doesn't say anything about a right to privacy being protected so I don't see how the supremecy clause applies.

 

[Diuretic]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "privacy" in the law. I think it's actually a little legal fiction or maybe legal shorthand for the circumstances created by having a legal system at all. If someone added up all the things a government - any government - can do that are in accordance with the law - then what's left is what's called "privacy".

Perhaps "privacy" - the right to be left alone - is an idea from natural law? And if it is then it will be affected by positive law because positive law will give governments and their agents the authority to invade - under certain circumstances - someone's privacy.

So perhaps privacy is assumed at natural law but that it can be legally invaded because of positive law.

If it is assumed at natural law then there's probably no need for it to be mentioned in the US Constitution because I think it's right to say that the US Constitution is positive law and as such seeks to limit what government can do vis-a-vis the citizen.

 

[dilloduck]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "privacy" in the law. I think it's actually a little legal fiction or maybe legal shorthand for the circumstances created by having a legal system at all. If someone added up all the things a government - any government - can do that are in accordance with the law - then what's left is what's called "privacy".

Perhaps "privacy" - the right to be left alone - is an idea from natural law? And if it is then it will be affected by positive law because positive law will give governments and their agents the authority to invade - under certain circumstances - someone's privacy.

So perhaps privacy is assumed at natural law but that it can be legally invaded because of positive law.

If it is assumed at natural law then there's probably no need for it to be mentioned in the US Constitution because I think it's right to say that the US Constitution is positive law and as such seeks to limit what government can do vis-a-vis the citizen.

The Constitution itself is an invasion of our natural pirvacy and our leaders are sworn to uphold it. My privacy is only that which I am able to protect myself.

 

[Diuretic]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "privacy" in the law. I think it's actually a little legal fiction or maybe legal shorthand for the circumstances created by having a legal system at all. If someone added up all the things a government - any government - can do that are in accordance with the law - then what's left is what's called "privacy".

Perhaps "privacy" - the right to be left alone - is an idea from natural law? And if it is then it will be affected by positive law because positive law will give governments and their agents the authority to invade - under certain circumstances - someone's privacy.

So perhaps privacy is assumed at natural law but that it can be legally invaded because of positive law.

If it is assumed at natural law then there's probably no need for it to be mentioned in the US Constitution because I think it's right to say that the US Constitution is positive law and as such seeks to limit what government can do vis-a-vis the citizen.

The Constitution itself is an invasion of our natural pirvacy and our leaders are sworn to uphold it. My privacy is only that which I am able to protect myself.

So that seems to reinforce the idea that there is no constitutional right to privacy because the constitution didn't and doesn't create privacy, but assumes its existence perhaps on a natural law basis and thus and can only negatively affect it. I think.

 

[dilloduck]

I wonder if there is such a thing as "privacy" in the law. I think it's actually a little legal fiction or maybe legal shorthand for the circumstances created by having a legal system at all. If someone added up all the things a government - any government - can do that are in accordance with the law - then what's left is what's called "privacy".

Perhaps "privacy" - the right to be left alone - is an idea from natural law? And if it is then it will be affected by positive law because positive law will give governments and their agents the authority to invade - under certain circumstances - someone's privacy.

So perhaps privacy is assumed at natural law but that it can be legally invaded because of positive law.

If it is assumed at natural law then there's probably no need for it to be mentioned in the US Constitution because I think it's right to say that the US Constitution is positive law and as such seeks to limit what government can do vis-a-vis the citizen.

The Constitution itself is an invasion of our natural pirvacy and our leaders are sworn to uphold it. My privacy is only that which I am able to protect myself.

So that seems to reinforce the idea that there is no constitutional right to privacy because the constitution didn't and doesn't create privacy, but assumes its existence perhaps on a natural law basis and thus and can only negatively affect it. I think.

Close enough for government work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Does it exist or not? I contend that it does for the following reasons-

You can search the constitution over for the word privacy, but you will not find it. You will also not find the word marriage. Does this mean that you don't have the right to get married? How about buy foreign goods or read a book? Those aren't specifically mentioned either. Neither is having children. The reason for these are not mentioned is due to a common misconception about the purpose of the constitution. 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.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

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

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.

The right to privacy is clearly in these two amendments. The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution. That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to listen to our phone calls; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution. This includes checking out your jumblies with X-ray specs at the fucking airport.

It's ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the Constitution grants a universal, blanket right to privacy, for the obvious fact that any criminal with two brain cells to rub together tries to commit his crimes IN PRIVATE.

The Constitution, as you pointed out, grants very specific protections for privacy under very specific circumstances.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what if the state government wants to invade your privacy?

Depends on what they want to do and how they want to do it.

 

[Toome]

I guess I fall in the strict constructionism crowd. I believe that our rights naturally exist and that the Constitution limits Government in terms of how its laws affect our rights that already exist. In other words, the Constitution does NOT have to say that we have a right to bear arms (and it does NOT say that) because that right already exists. Instead, the Constitution tells Government that it may NOT pass any law that infringes upon the right to bear arms. The burden of proof always lies on Government not the individual.

This is why I am more concerned today about how the Obama administration is interpreting certain aspects of the Constitution. I also had similar concerns with the Bush administration, so I'm not being partisan. In fact, the way I see the political parties of today is left and not-so-left. The political right doesn't exist anymore.