Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[danielpalos]

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?

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

So there is no 'right to privacy' listed in the US Constitution.

question is always: Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

answers like: Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. - fail to address it head on. If the 4th is 'about' a right to privacy, why doesn't it mention it? Even a Wikipedia entry goes on about: First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. But at least they acknowledged first that "the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the" 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.

I agree with the Supreme Court. But let us be consistent. Too many people who claims rights that are enumerated, and deny some rights not enumerated, almost always claim a right to privacy.

Due process applies before you can get convicted. The right to privacy from Government without a just Cause.

The actual natural right to privacy is found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

So there is no 'right to privacy' listed in the US Constitution.

question is always: Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

answers like: Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. - fail to address it head on. If the 4th is 'about' a right to privacy, why doesn't it mention it? Even a Wikipedia entry goes on about: First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. But at least they acknowledged first that "the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the" 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.

I agree with the Supreme Court. But let us be consistent. Too many people who claims rights that are enumerated, and deny some rights not enumerated, almost always claim a right to privacy.

Due process applies before you can get convicted. The right to privacy from Government without a just Cause.

The actual natural right to privacy is found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

 

[JBvM]

The history of the ninth is well documented. It was added as a concession to the Federalists, who claimed that the Bill of Rights was a mistake. They feared people would come to see the BoR as an exclusive enumeration of our rights, and that authoritarian leaders would promote this view in their desire to trample rights not listed. But the ninth didn't really work. It's now largely ignored, and we've fallen into exactly the trap the Federalists predicted.

First they were all federalists in the sense that were all for a federal constitution, a federal government, just not of the later Federalist party. Prior to the US Constitution being ratified, there was no Federalist party to speak of.

Yes, the history of the ninth is well documented. and the other side, had credible arguments too. In my opinion, had the bill of rights gone either way. .. we'd have been battling. There were always going to be traps of a kind. The only thing that kept the nation together, was a common purpose. They wanted to succeed in the experiment, because it had cost so much. Neighbors, friends, and families turned on each other. It was a true civil war that resulted in the formation of the USA.

Kinda. The term 'Federalist' predates the party by years. It was popularized as defining those who advocated a stronger centeral government compared to those who wanted a weaker federal government with the publishing of the Federalist Papers in 1887. The papers were collectively called 'The Federalist' during that age.

And the Federalists were a pretty defined camp in the constitutional debate. And if you read the Federalist Papers, they most definitely won the debate on what the new constitution was to be.

My point would be there was no federalist party as we come to understand parties. Madison and Hamilton fight mighty hard to get the document ratified. Hamilton lost many battles over what would be in the final draft. Madison is not considered a member of a federalist party, but he was indeed a federalist. And some of the ant-federalists (against ratification) later appear to be federalists LOL

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

So there is no 'right to privacy' listed in the US Constitution.

question is always: Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

answers like: Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. - fail to address it head on. If the 4th is 'about' a right to privacy, why doesn't it mention it? Even a Wikipedia entry goes on about: First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. But at least they acknowledged first that "the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the" 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.

I agree with the Supreme Court. But let us be consistent. Too many people who claims rights that are enumerated, and deny some rights not enumerated, almost always claim a right to privacy.

Due process applies before you can get convicted. The right to privacy from Government without a just Cause.

The actual natural right to privacy is found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

California is more comprehensive.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Skylar]

The history of the ninth is well documented. It was added as a concession to the Federalists, who claimed that the Bill of Rights was a mistake. They feared people would come to see the BoR as an exclusive enumeration of our rights, and that authoritarian leaders would promote this view in their desire to trample rights not listed. But the ninth didn't really work. It's now largely ignored, and we've fallen into exactly the trap the Federalists predicted.

First they were all federalists in the sense that were all for a federal constitution, a federal government, just not of the later Federalist party. Prior to the US Constitution being ratified, there was no Federalist party to speak of.

Yes, the history of the ninth is well documented. and the other side, had credible arguments too. In my opinion, had the bill of rights gone either way. .. we'd have been battling. There were always going to be traps of a kind. The only thing that kept the nation together, was a common purpose. They wanted to succeed in the experiment, because it had cost so much. Neighbors, friends, and families turned on each other. It was a true civil war that resulted in the formation of the USA.

Kinda. The term 'Federalist' predates the party by years. It was popularized as defining those who advocated a stronger centeral government compared to those who wanted a weaker federal government with the publishing of the Federalist Papers in 1887. The papers were collectively called 'The Federalist' during that age.

And the Federalists were a pretty defined camp in the constitutional debate. And if you read the Federalist Papers, they most definitely won the debate on what the new constitution was to be.

My point would be there was no federalist party as we come to understand parties. Madison and Hamilton fight mighty hard to get the document ratified. Hamilton lost many battles over what would be in the final draft. Madison is not considered a member of a federalist party, but he was indeed a federalist. And some of the ant-federalists (against ratification) later appear to be federalists LOL

If you look at the Federalist Papers.....which were written overwhelmingly by Hamilton, they outline the constitution almost point for point. Regardless of what label you apply to Madison, he advocated the principles of the Federalist Papers, which he was also an author.

Most of what Hamilton and Madison fought about were outside the scope of the Federalist Papers.

 

[JBvM]

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

You have to be a southerner LOL

what about The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And just as Jefferson did not write what became the Declaration of Independence alone., Madison did not write what became the US Constitution, alone. - just sayin

 

[JBvM]

If you look at the Federalist Papers.....which were written overwhelmingly by Hamilton, they outline the constitution almost point for point. Regardless of what label you apply to Madison, he advocated the principles of the Federalist Papers, which he was also an author.

Most of what Hamilton and Madison fought about were outside the scope of the Federalist Papers.

Not too sure about that!

I could check my files, but I made notes of times Madison and Hamilton appeared to be as malleable as good old hypocrite Jefferson seemed to be far too often when it suited his crazed needs

If you were to argue principles versus practices, in practice -- I think we'd end up agreeing 99.9%

 

[Skylar]

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?

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

So there is no 'right to privacy' listed in the US Constitution.

question is always: Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

answers like: Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. - fail to address it head on. If the 4th is 'about' a right to privacy, why doesn't it mention it? Even a Wikipedia entry goes on about: First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. But at least they acknowledged first that "the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the" 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.

I agree with the Supreme Court. But let us be consistent. Too many people who claims rights that are enumerated, and deny some rights not enumerated, almost always claim a right to privacy.

Due process applies before you can get convicted. The right to privacy from Government without a just Cause.

The actual natural right to privacy is found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

California is more comprehensive.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Ah. Yeah, but not until much, much, much later. The original california bill of rights in 1849 made no mention of it. The original passage read;

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

California Constitution of 1849

The State of California issued its own Bill of Rights in 1849 with a strong defence of property rights (1849) - Online Library of Liberty

It was amended later, the early 1970s, I think, to read as follows:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

ARTICLE 1 :: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

And this after the right to privacy had been recognized n Griswold. But before Roe.......I think. If it was pre-Roe, it was *just* before Roe.

So this again might be a language issue. With the term 'privacy' not one as commonly used in the era of the founders as it is today.

 

[Skylar]

If you look at the Federalist Papers.....which were written overwhelmingly by Hamilton, they outline the constitution almost point for point. Regardless of what label you apply to Madison, he advocated the principles of the Federalist Papers, which he was also an author.

Most of what Hamilton and Madison fought about were outside the scope of the Federalist Papers.

Not too sure about that!

I could check my files, but I made notes of times Madison and Hamilton appeared to be as malleable as good old hypocrite Jefferson seemed to be far too often when it suited his crazed needs

If you were to argue principles versus practices, in practice -- I think we'd end up agreeing 99.9%

Jefferson wasn't a delegate, present for any of the debates, or even in the country when the Constitution was written. Making him one of the least influential framers. Hamilton was a delegate and had enormous influence on the Constitution.

And I'm speaking of the principles laid out in the Federalist Papers specifically. They were implemented almost entirely into the Constitution. And they were written overwhelmingly, by Hamilton.

 

[Skylar]

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

You have to be a southerner LOL

what about The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And just as Jefferson did not write what became the Declaration of Independence alone., Madison did not write what became the US Constitution, alone. - just sayin

Madison was responding directly to the objections of George Mason with his inclusion of the a Bill of Rights. Mason was a delegate from Virginia, Madison's own state. And George Mason's first and most pronounced objection to the US Constitution.....was the lack of a Bill of Rights. With George Mason being the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Between it and the Petition of Rights from the early 1600s, you've got the first 8 amendments.

And I'm from all over. I live in Central Texas, Northern California, Western Japan, Eastern Germany, Georgia, Florida and occasionally Canada. So I'm not overwhelmingly influenced by any particular region. But a little by all of them.

On this issue, I'm overwhelmingly influenced by history.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

So there is no 'right to privacy' listed in the US Constitution.

question is always: Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

answers like: Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. - fail to address it head on. If the 4th is 'about' a right to privacy, why doesn't it mention it? Even a Wikipedia entry goes on about: First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. But at least they acknowledged first that "the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the" 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th amendments.

I agree with the Supreme Court. But let us be consistent. Too many people who claims rights that are enumerated, and deny some rights not enumerated, almost always claim a right to privacy.

Due process applies before you can get convicted. The right to privacy from Government without a just Cause.

The actual natural right to privacy is found in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

California is more comprehensive.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Ah. Yeah, but not until much, much, much later. The original california bill of rights in 1849 made no mention of it. The original passage read;

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

California Constitution of 1849

The State of California issued its own Bill of Rights in 1849 with a strong defence of property rights (1849) - Online Library of Liberty

It was amended later, the early 1970s, I think, to read as follows:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

ARTICLE 1 :: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

And this after the right to privacy had been recognized n Griswold. But before Roe.......I think. If it was pre-Roe, it was *just* before Roe.

So this again might be a language issue. With the term 'privacy' not one as commonly used in the era of the founders as it is today.

Liberty is a form of privacy. We merely clarified it for the right wing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Our Fourth Amendment is all about a right to privacy. Due Process applies.

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.

It's against "against unreasonable searches and seizures" and then we fight over what is reasonable.

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Some things seem purposefully vague, while other things demanded to them that they be listed.

there were battles over whether to even include a Bill of Rights. The reasoning on all sides I have studied.

I assume it's because they knew that criminals prefer to commit crimes in private.

Probably also because they lived in a society where it was a lot easier to have true privacy, and a lot harder for others to intrude on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution doesn't enumerate our rights.

don't be so disingenuous

there are enumerated rights and others not enumerated.

You posted the ninth - did you read it? There is no need for a right to be referenced in the Constitution.

The framers felt a need to enumerate some rights. Why some and not others?

The Bill of Rights was purely PR. It was for people too stupid to understand how the Constitution protects rights by limiting government. But it was a mistake. Those same stupid people are still with us.

Actually, the people who insisted that the limitations of government and the requirements on the government to respect the people's rights were correct. We see all the time how the government and its worshippers try to weasel around and usurp control of people's lives even with the Bill of Rights in place. Imagine how much worse it would be if we couldn't point to specific phrases in the law and say, "You can't do that because SEE?!"

 

[JBvM]

Jefferson wasn't a delegate, present for any of the debates, or even in the country when the Constitution was written. Making him one of the least influential framers. Hamilton was a delegate and had enormous influence on the Constitution.

And I'm speaking of the principles laid out in the Federalist Papers specifically. They were implemented almost entirely into the Constitution. And they were written overwhelmingly, by Hamilton.

My recollection is that Hamilton did not get much of what he wanted into the final draft. The Federalist (papers) were arguments for voting for ratification, of a document that was already drafted. Hamilton was mostly arguing to get NY to ratify.

Jefferson was away, yes. I was speaking of the men after ratification, how they acted, and how they became what their contemporaries claimed -- hypocrites in some instances.

 

[JBvM]

Not expressly. The most influential document to the Bill of Rights was probably the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And it makes no explicit mention of 'privacy'. Though it does protect privacy in its rights.

This may also be an issue of common usage in our age. Privacy is a word that may just be used more commonly now than then.

You have to be a southerner LOL

what about The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And just as Jefferson did not write what became the Declaration of Independence alone., Madison did not write what became the US Constitution, alone. - just sayin

Madison was responding directly to the objections of George Mason with his inclusion of the a Bill of Rights. Mason was a delegate from Virginia, Madison's own state. And George Mason's first and most pronounced objection to the US Constitution.....was the lack of a Bill of Rights. With George Mason being the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Between it and the Petition of Rights from the early 1600s, you've got the first 8 amendments.

And I'm from all over. I live in Central Texas, Northern California, Western Japan, Eastern Germany, Georgia, Florida and occasionally Canada. So I'm not overwhelmingly influenced by any particular region. But a little by all of them.

On this issue, I'm overwhelmingly influenced by history.

much of the history seems to be written by scholars from the south. I noticed a slight bias in many well regarded pieces. The history itself is heavily influenced by southern biases - in my opinion. I see you heavily influenced with the Virginia spin.

it's okay, it is what it is. It's like arguing Jamestown versus Plymouth LOL

 

[JBvM]

Liberty is a form of privacy. We merely clarified it for the right wing.

Huh?

The liberties the colonists were insisting they had, were English/British ones. The claim was that the forefathers brought them along as loyal subjects.

 

[JBvM]

I'm always curious what others think is the reasoning that the framers did not list 'privacy'

Because they never intended to enumerate our rights in the Constitution. It protects our rights (an infinite list) by limiting the power of government.

you're talking out of your butt now.

there are arguments for what they did and didn't do

some things seem to have been left purposefully vague, while others like those enumerated were felt to be of importance - then we get the Ninth

Yes, because the Constitution is not intended to grant rights. It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights. The Ninth Amendment is there to remind us of this fact.

Yes. And why introduce "the Constitution is not intended to grant rights?" did anyone in this back and forth suggest so? I'm curious about why you brought that in

"It's intended to set out limitations on ways the government is allowed to infringe on those rights." - which rights? The rights the constitution is not granting? Huh?

the 9th needs little explanation in what it says. But it is purposefully vague about what are considered rights

 

[JBvM]

Actually, the people who insisted that the limitations of government and the requirements on the government to respect the people's rights were correct. We see all the time how the government and its worshippers try to weasel around and usurp control of people's lives even with the Bill of Rights in place. Imagine how much worse it would be if we couldn't point to specific phrases in the law and say, "You can't do that because SEE?!"

you mean like interfering in bedrooms and in women's bodies?

please do not try and make this about current arguments on partisan issues

 

[danielpalos]

Liberty is a form of privacy. We merely clarified it for the right wing.

Huh?

The liberties the colonists were insisting they had, were English/British ones. The claim was that the forefathers brought them along as loyal subjects.

We also have State Constitutions. What are You talking about.