Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by JBvM, Jul 9, 2018.

?

Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

  1. Yes

    14 vote(s)
    87.5%
  2. No

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  3. It was found by ultra liberal activist Judges

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. JBvM
    Offline

    JBvM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,963
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Location:
    here
    Ratings:
    +855
    Swing Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Hugo Black disagreed in Griswold v Connecticut. The decision was 7 - 2 in favor. The big deal was Justice Douglas, ultra liberal accused-activist Judge. Doe any of it matter?

    Question
    Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

    {{meta.pageTitle}}

    My Question(s): Do you stand on principle, or do you agree or disagree because of personalities involved or a judicial philosophy?

    and

    Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?
     
  2. Bob Blaylock
    Offline

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,539
    Thanks Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,715
    The Fourth Amendment is almost entirely about privacy. Actually, so is the Third Amendment, but it's not so obvious unless you really understand the background of it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. JBvM
    Offline

    JBvM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,963
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Location:
    here
    Ratings:
    +855
    How so? If I were a constructionist or texualist, strict or loose, how would you convince me? Where is privacy mentioned?

    Major Originalist like Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no right of privacy exists.
     
  4. Bob Blaylock
    Offline

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,539
    Thanks Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,715
    The Third Amendment and privacy?

    Consider that when the Constitution was written,electronics hadn't yet been invented. No microphones, no transmitters or receivers. No technology for “bugging” someone's home.

    The only way to know what conversations took place in someone's home would be to have a human being in a position to overhear them. Perhaps a soldier, there under the guise of being housed.

    I do not think that the Third Amendment was merely about providing housing for soldiers. It was about putting government agents in people's homes, to spy on them.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. JBvM
    Offline

    JBvM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,963
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Location:
    here
    Ratings:
    +855
    What was Giswold decided on? electronics? microphones? transmitters? receivers? technology?

    Your assumptions are terrible. It is not true especially back in the late 18th century that 'the only way to know what conversations took place in someone's home" All it would take was for an upstanding citizen to make an accusation. Not many people realize the right to free speech was not universal for all citizens, as it evolved over time. A living, breathing right. Earlier the right was usually for protecting the right of legislators and parliamentarians to speak freely in a government body, not the average subject or citizen.
     
  6. JBvM
    Offline

    JBvM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Messages:
    1,963
    Thanks Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Location:
    here
    Ratings:
    +855
    Is this a straw man? "I do not think that the Third Amendment was merely about providing housing for soldiers?"
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. playtime
    Offline

    playtime Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    13,550
    Thanks Received:
    7,005
    Trophy Points:
    2,095
    Location:
    Land of the sane.
    Ratings:
    +13,844
    when you vote, you are absolutely granted the right to privacy. you are not required - by law - to have anybody see your vote behind that curtain or little cubicle or make you reveal your vote.

    that same 'right' extends to what goes on within the walls of a private home or a doctor's office.

    i'd attach the right to privacy to having equal protection under the law.
     
  8. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    328
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +66
    " Communications Open Source Over Ride "

    * Rigor Us Work Spring *
    An impetus of this thread may allude to a political narrative that a right ( a rite , a write , a wright ) to privacy for abortion does not exist through Exegesis - Wikipedia and is actually Eisegesis - Wikipedia of the us constitution .

    As has been stipulated , US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion .

    As a fae fee fie foe fue fye to us is private property the mother , a wright of privacy is entitled secondarily by the us 4th amendment .

    A deduction that a faeiouy is private property occurs directly through an inference from naturalism , where natural freedoms are exchanged for wrights of reprise established through a constitution , a state is comprised of citizens and it is for citizens that a state is established for reprise .

    As the constitution establishes that citizenship occurs at birth , that rigorously defines any and all seeking equal protection must be born , which exactly founds the Blackmun ' s opinion in the Roe w Wade decision .

    Now roe v wade stipulated that abortion is legal until birth and concluded that after natural viability a states interest grows and that states may proscribe abortion thereafter when parturition became a relative standard for birth .

    And , yet , with amnesia brought on by arrogance and by ignorance , it is those who maintain that negative liberties for abortion are not assured by the constitution who have an audacity to swear that others do not understand the constitution !

    * Reverberation Concerning Exceptions Rules *

    Since a requirement of birth according to the us constitution does not answer whether abortion is ethical , the remaining standard is to establish that a physical capacity for sentience satisfies a criteria against cruel or unusual treatment as per the 8th amendment , and corroborated in 7th law of noah .

    These are examples of issuance against tortuous treatment , while Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia , " Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2] " ; and , Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia , " Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal. " .

    * Heckling Political Cinema Of Commode Theatrics *

    Be wary of those seeking to implement tyranny by majority or tyranny buy minority against negative liberties assured to individualism through non aggression principles .

    These days those to be wary refer to themselves as anti-federalists , as they shine gazes of contempt they hope to deflect a bent as statists seeking to implement illegitimate aggression through tyranny by majority , or tyranny buy minority , against the negative liberties of individualism assured through principles of non aggression as well as through us constitution .

    Thus to the anti-fedederalist statists , the 9th and 10th us amendments establish a precedence for this individualist as both anti-statists and anti-federalists .

    * Kitchen Sink Plumbing *

    The heretics of antinomianism within a reich wing , against whom-in-who non aggression principles have NOT been violated , are seeking to issue a retort of illegitimate aggression against negative liberties of individual citizens , on behalf of that which has not met a requirement of birth for equal protection .

    It is individual citizens who are responsible for self ownership to include genetic continuance , such means that collectives of federalists , or collectives of statists , or collectives of private individuals masquerading as both , DO NOT determine the means or methods chosen by individual citizens to ensure their own genetic survival , especially given its assurances through constitutional protection as well as its ethical conciliation from naturalism .

    * High Lighted Bill Of Wrights Order Of Precedence *

    Core negative liberties include self owner ship ( free roam , free association , self preservation ) and self determine nation ( private property - free enterprise , will full intentions ) .

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia directs privacy of self ownership and self determination without just cause .
    The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia directs just compensation for assertive actions of government against self determination .
    * Autonomy Accountability Specifications Due Knot Available *

    The us 9th amendment occurs before the us 10th amendment in the bill of wrights and thereby stipulates that individualism reigns supreme over statism or federalism .

    Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
    Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
    * Hell Low Others Seen *

    An example of a wright to privacy occurs with every Search and seizure - Wikipedia , as a wright to privacy requires technical procedures for a search , including consent , which must be followed as an example of enforcement of the us fourth amendment .

    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia is based upon individual accountability , where individuals are ultimately responsible for survival of their own identity .
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  9. Bob Blaylock
    Offline

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,539
    Thanks Received:
    1,547
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,715
    A well-known theorem holds that an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards would produce copies of all known works of literature.

    However, as we can all clearly see here, one monkey at one keyboard only produces meaningless nonsense.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  10. Monk-Eye
    Offline

    Monk-Eye Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    328
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Ratings:
    +66
    " Frantically Parading Madness And Projecting "

    * Context Focus Bump Up *

    It may be that one of those test monkeys evolved to escape confinement and is using keyboards against the captors as a free radical .

    As it is , are the cowards skulking from the challenge willing to claim that a supreme court justice was stricken with nonsense as well ?

    Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."
     

Share This Page