Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[Pappadave1]

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

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.

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.

And he was right about that. For there to be a "right of privacy" written into the Constitution, it must be absolute. Since Griswold, Roe, etc. and the 4th Amendment all give several EXCEPTIONS to privacy rights, there actually aren't any.

 

[justinacolmena]

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.

Note:

1. "unreasonable" = unwarranted (+/-)
2. "shall not be violated" = absolute
3. The check for "probable cause" will bounce if it does not result in conviction by due process.

 

[Pappadave1]

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.

Note:

1. "unreasonable" = unwarranted (+/-)
2. "shall not be violated" = absolute
3. The check for "probable cause" will bounce if it does not result in conviction by due process.

Agreed! And my point exactly.

 

[Jets]

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?

Black and Stewart were correct that the Conn legislature should have dealt with the issue. IMO

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

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?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paers, 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 ... "

You wouldn't feel it was an invasion of your privacy if some unknown person unbeknownst to you was conducting database searches on you and was gathering or perusing all of your personal information with, or without any lawful authority, if you have not committed any violations of the law, particularly not knowing their intent?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

.


Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?


.>>>>

No, they don't have to be enumerated. That's why the Tenth Amendment states:

"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."

 

[pegwinn]

.


Do rights have to be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by people?


.>>>>

After reading the OP question and responses thru a painfully slow process… The answer to the question is NO. There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.

The 3rd Amendment says no quartering soldiers in your home.
The 4th Amendment carves out specific areas that cannot be searched sans warrant.

The other question is if it has to be enumerated. NO. Per the 9th Amendment I can assert the right to walk down the street butt nekkid, smokin a doobie, hand in hand with my confused gender partner, all while carrying a slung full auto tommy gun and a no-shit Conan the fucking barbarian battle axe.

But, the 9th Amendment is an affirmative defense which means it is on you to prove your assertion.

 

[pegwinn]

No, they don't have to be enumerated. That's why the Tenth Amendment states:

"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."

Actually that is the NINTH Amendment. The Tenth is a specific statement of limitation on the Federal Government. The 9th is the one to explicitly say that not every right is enumerated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually that is the NINTH Amendment. The Tenth is a specific statement of limitation on the Federal Government. The 9th is the one to explicitly say that not every right is enumerated.

Actually, you're both correct. What she cited was the Tenth Amendment, which does very clearly state that the people retain more rights than just those the Constitution mentions in its listing of powers and limitations for the government. The Ninth Amendment also states that just because a right of the people is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it shouldn't be assumed that right does not exist.

James Madison and other Founders did NOT intend for the Constitution to be seen as granting rights to the citizens. They assumed that freedom and liberty was and should be the natural default for people, with the government existing to protect and safeguard that freedom. The Constitution exists to create that government and to limit its power to impose on the people.

 

[dblack]

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

This question exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Constitution works. It's not a list of rights.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

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?

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

{{meta.fullTitle}}

A right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.

 

[Pellinore]

Several others have already said it, but I will echo that it is a long-standing unenumerated right, the existence of which is detailed in the Ninth Amendment. It is the basis for several enumerated rights, numerous Supreme Court decisions, and lots and lots of laws.

So, yes, it does.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

If the government has to establish a probability that a person has committed or is committing or about to committed a crime before it can get a warrant to search a suspect’s home or peruse a suspect’s records, then there is necessarily some Constitutional concern for the right of the people to privacy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Its called "due process" - not depriving people of rights liberty freedom equal protections without following due process for determining wrongdoing by which person and the appropriate penalty proscribed by law. No searches and seizures without warrant based on probable cause and naming the specific items to be searched for and seized according to law.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

If the government has to establish a probability that a person has committed or is committing or about to committed a crime before it can get a warrant to search a suspect’s home or peruse a suspect’s records, then there is necessarily some Constitutional concern for the right of the people to privacy.

that's not about privacy LOL

too funny

 

[Dante Reawakened]

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?

there is, as there exists the right(s) to be stupid, ignorant, hateful, bigoted, unreasonable, irrational...

 

[emilynghiem]

that's not about privacy LOL

too funny

Indirectly, the principle of respecting individual liberty rights and freedom until and unless there is probable cause to issue a warrant to conduct a specific "search and seizure" (and not to deprive or disparage a person's natural rights without due process of the laws) implies and includes a person's "right to security in their persons houses and effects" which overlaps with the concept of personal private space.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Indirectly, the principle of respecting individual liberty rights and freedom until and unless there is probable cause to issue a warrant to conduct a specific "search and seizure" (and not to deprive or disparage a person's natural rights without due process of the laws) implies and includes a person's "right to security in their persons houses and effects" which overlaps with the concept of personal private space.

were natural rights ever mentioned in English/British documents the American Colonists were appealing to in arguments to their Sovereign King?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

the principle

Hello em

 

[emilynghiem]

were natural rights ever mentioned in English/British documents the American Colonists were appealing to in arguments to their Sovereign King?

The whole protest and petition is about natural rights to consent, no taxation without representation, and the nature of man to require democratic self govt because of free will. The whole process has always been about establishing and restoring the sense of justice and security. That's all humans want. We want our consent, freedom and security, we want to be free of the impositions and abuse or force of others competing against us for their own benefits and control.

All the written grievances are always against the tyrannical oppression and abuses of others we don't consent to live under.

Using any other terms, its always about defending our rights and interests from infringement by others, usually by abusing collective authority