Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 73.7%
  • No

    Votes: 9 23.7%
  • It was found by ultra liberal activist Judges

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Total voters
    38
Theres no need for the right to privacy to be "in" the Constitution. The document doesn't enumerate, nor limit, our rights. Instead, it enumerates, and limits, the powers of the federal government.
 
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?
IMO a 'right to privacy' falls into the category of unalienable rights that the Constitution intended to protect by limiting the reach, scope, authority, power of the federal government.

As the neoMarxists push their ideology more and more into the federal government and increase it's reach, scope, authority, power, the fewer such rights the people are allowed. I believe this is intentional and, unless stopped, will increase until the people have no more rights or liberty than what a totalitarian government decrees they shall have at any given time.

But even in the Founder's day, unalienable rights were intended to be within the law. Our right to privacy means that we should be secure against illegal search or seizure of our paper or possession, monitoring or government interference in our relationships, communications, how we choose to organize our societies and/or live our lives within the law.

A right to privacy does not allow us to engage with impunity in illegal activities or deprive others of their unalienable rights.
 
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
King George has abused authority to impose taxes on colonists while denying and depriving them of protection and rights.

_______ has abused (church/state/govt/corporate) authority to impose (collective policy) that violates the rights beliefs or consent of X individuals or group.

Otherwise known as natural rights, liberty, consent of the governed, freedom of choice or free exercise of religion, right to due process and security/protection without deprivation or disparagement, no taxation without representation.

"Leave me/us alone unless we agree to a contract authorizing services under mutually agreed terms and conditions we agree to pay for support and follow"

If the contract/law isn't specific and accurate enough, and it gets abused to color outside the lines or limits, then the people objecting petition for reform or redress of grievances to resolve the conflicts over terms.

This democratic process is ongoing.

First the colonists adopted laws from English common law and the Magna Carta and other precedence.

When the Crown abused power to deny equal representation to Colonists, this led to war and revolt to finally break free and demand self governance independently.

Then to write up a better agreed contract there was a whole process -- including Common Sense, the Rights of Man, the Declaration and Preamble, the Federalist papers and debates back and forth, the Articles of Confederation, the first Continental Congress, the Constitution that didn't get ratified without an agreement to add the BILL of RIGHTS that most specifically spells out the natural laws and rights necessary for Democratic process to defend individual liberty from collective abuse of govt authority. Etc.

This is like putting the Bible together from multiple sources.
 
Theres no need for the right to privacy to be "in" the Constitution. The document doesn't enumerate, nor limit, our rights. Instead, it enumerates, and limits, the powers of the federal government.
Yes the whole point of people having naturally occurring rights is they exist by human nature and don't depend on govt to exist.


However like how copyright laws are easier to enforce when you have proof in writing, when humans form Agreed social contracts in writing, these are more practical for enforcement.

We need to agree on principles and standards and then we can enforce those mutually, with or without written govt laws.

It helps to have common policies put in writing as part of the democratic process (to ensure we spell out what we agree to and don't agree to) and to make it easier to enforce those contracts / laws because all the communication and conditions were settled and agreed in advance.


Works follow the faith.

The letter of the law follows the spirit. You cannot expect to dictate or legislate change by forcing written laws. The parties affected and governed must consent to the contract to make it legally binding and enforceable or it falls apart.
 
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
wrong


Thomas Paine type shit is hilarious. The man was almost run out of the USA because of his rabid support of mayhem and murder in France

many humans desire a strongman leader giving up freedom for security
 
" 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 .

I'm glad to see that at least one person has mentioned the Ninth Amendment as a source for recognition of a right to privacy. I think it was mentioned in the Griswold case.
 
I'm glad to see that at least one person has mentioned the Ninth Amendment as a source for recognition of a right to privacy. I think it was mentioned in the Griswold case.
I'm generally surprised when someone has actually read the Ninth. Much less understood it.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to see that at least one person has mentioned the Ninth Amendment as a source for recognition of a right to privacy. I think it was mentioned in the Griswold case.
It was one of the concurrent opinions in Roe v. Wade as well.
 
It was one of the concurrent opinions in Roe v. Wade as well.
Just going from memory, having read neither of those cases as a layman, it seems Clarence Thomas and others noted that RvW hinged (incorrectly) on the Due Process Clause and that was the fatal flaw. I don't recall ever reading that the Ninth was argued in RvW?
 
" Nor Prohibited By It "

* Taken For Granted *

Just going from memory, having read neither of those cases as a layman, it seems Clarence Thomas and others noted that RvW hinged (incorrectly) on the Due Process Clause and that was the fatal flaw. I don't recall ever reading that the Ninth was argued in RvW?
The sedition of scotus in dobbs decision is through deceit that proscription of abortion is not prohibited to states .

The constitutional basis for abortion is a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , which is related by blackmun , in paraphrase , " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " .

The definition of person in title 1 section 8 of us code as those born alive at any point in development , and us 14th amendment clause of " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws . " , were explicitly and unconstitutionally violated by scotus in dobbs ruling .

The definition of person in title 1 section 8 is a direct conclusion from equitable doctrine , whereby since a live birth is a requirement to be a citizen then a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen and , as such , proscription of abortion is prohibited to states .

The a wright to privacy in us 9th amendment is consequential to states interests being prohibited from providing equal protection to any which has not met a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.


12
...
On the merits, the District Court held that the 'fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose where to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,' and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights.
 
" Nor Prohibited By It "

* Taken For Granted *


The sedition of scotus in dobbs decision is through deceit that proscription of abortion is not prohibited to states .

The constitutional basis for abortion is a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , which is related by blackmun , in paraphrase , " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth . " .

The definition of person in title 1 section 8 of us code as those born alive at any point in development , and us 14th amendment clause of " nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws . " , were explicitly and unconstitutionally violated by scotus in dobbs ruling .

The definition of person in title 1 section 8 is a direct conclusion from equitable doctrine , whereby since a live birth is a requirement to be a citizen then a live birth is required for equal protection with a citizen and , as such , proscription of abortion is prohibited to states .

The a wright to privacy in us 9th amendment is consequential to states interests being prohibited from providing equal protection to any which has not met a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.


12
...
On the merits, the District Court held that the 'fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose where to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,' and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights.

Thanks for this clarification, if I am understanding correctly. So the District Court in Roe seems to have had it right in the first place, Texas appealed and SCOTUS agreed with the District Court? If that is the case, then I would have to agree with your first sentence.

It seems to me that the most recent decision, Dobbs, amounts to sophistry and is driven ONLY by religious dogma.
 
" Propaganda Machines And Legal Teams Exercise Ignorance With Donations "

* Dobbs Ruled That Disparagement Of Non Enumerated Wrights Is Allowed By States In Us 10th *

Thanks for this clarification, if I am understanding correctly. So the District Court in Roe seems to have had it right in the first place, Texas appealed and SCOTUS agreed with the District Court? If that is the case, then I would have to agree with your first sentence.
As a state interest is prohibited in protecting a wright to life of a zygote , or embryo , or fetus , which has not met a live birth requirement to receive it , any citizen of the united states has legal standing in a civil wrights lawsuit against state and federal governments for violation of the equal protection clause from the 14th amendment of us constitution by its proscription of abortion .

A lawsuit for equal protection violation is substantiated by a overtly simple explanation of blackmun opinion from the 1973 roe v wade ruling , that was usurped by sanctimonious traitors to us republic , is a direct challenge to the seditious decision in dobbs by scotus .

* Brief Political Honesty Among Dismissive Arrogance Of Insulated Cliques *
It seems to me that the most recent decision, Dobbs, amounts to sophistry and is driven ONLY by religious dogma.
The blackmun statement , " Logically , of course , a legitimate state interest .. not .. prior to live birth " , had been explained to the pro-choice leadership for more than 25 years , however a wright to privacy was embraced for its simplified public message though it lacked constitutional rigor as it is incidental to the principle constitutional basis for abortion .

Clearly , natural viability was substituted in lieu of a live birth requirement for an ability of a fetus to survive and imminent live birth which roe v wade referred to as potential life - more succinctly a wright to life .

Politicians had heard the controversy long before 2002 when it clarified the definition of person from us 14th amendment , in title 1 section 8 of us code . to make it consistent with a live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen .

The traitors to us republic do exercise sanctimonious religious dogma to garner support for its propaganda and fee press populism , as do any other sect vying to establish their perspective as the norm , and yet the pro-choice leadership and its religion of secular humanism exercise incompetence .


* Private Prosecution Versus Equitable Doctrine And Negative Liberties *

This comment reviews private prosecution for abortion in texas law that is mostly fluff .

This comment reviews baseless paternal claims for proprietorship over abortion during a pregnancy .
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top