Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[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

 

[dblack]

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.

 

[dblack]

then we get the Ninth

And what do you think it means?

 

[dblack]

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment | James A. Woehlke

 

[JBvM]

Problems arise when people refuse to acknowledge that some rights are inferred, that some rights are not listed or enumerated. I said before I agree with the Court's rulings on a right to privacy, but the rulings admit that a right to privacy is not listed/enumerated.

Then we get people who say a right to _______ (fill in the blank) doesn't exist because it is not enumerated, yet those same people believe in a right to privacy - which is not enumerated

Myself, I've always wondered how people view the 9th &10th amendments:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"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."

How people claim to view them and then compare or contrast their opinion(s) on how they argue over rights, delegated powers... how they view 'Sates' and 'the people' which are in my understanding -- two separate entities

 

[JBvM]

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment | James A. Woehlke

First, FEE is a partisan group, with an ideological agenda. So they are not the definitive or unbiased source

 

[dblack]

Then we get people who say a right to _______ (fill in the blank) doesn't exist because it is not enumerated, yet those same people believe in a right to privacy - which is not enumerated

Hypocrisy is the order of the day in modern politics. "It's different when we do it".

 

[dblack]

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment | James A. Woehlke

First, FEE is a partisan group, with an ideological agenda. So they are not the definitive or unbiased source

And second? Did you just skip the article?

 

[JBvM]

then we get the Ninth

And what do you think it means?

I believe the 9th is pretty vague on one level - the level being the framers left it for others to judge. They were not stupid men. They debated, deliberated, and compromised in order to get the thing done. But they also knew the faults and problems that would arise later. My proof of what I claim here is that like I've always mentioned... the most famous of the framers ended up disagreeing with each other, and and at times disagreeing with their own opinions. People who claim certain things through quotes, are engaging in a disingenuous game of dueling quotes. if they are honest about it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The Bill of Rights appear to have been iterative in its creation. With documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced which rights were covered. With the Declaration of Rights being in turn influenced strongly by the Petition of Rights from the 1620s and the British Bill of Rights in the 1680s with a little Magna Carta sprinkled in.

There was also likely some immediate reaction to the abuses under by the British enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

In my opinion, the founders were walking an interesting tight rope......trying to assure folks like George Mason that the new government wouldn't be a new iteration of British tyranny while at the same time trying to frame their constitution and their laws in the language of the law used by the British......in an apply a patina of legitimacy to the British as well. It was also the legal tradition that the founder would have been most familiar.

The strong influence of British legal documents would then make a fair amount of sense in the creation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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?

I will think this over and give you my own opinion before reading the thread. What I can say is this:

You may not find the exact wording in the Constitution that would settle the issue, but if we look to court precedents along with the attitudes of the founders and what motivated them - AND how they admonished us to interpret the Constitution, you will get a clearer picture of the truth.

thank you

You're welcome. Since this is moving at a fast pace, the usual stuff have been listed.

It would appear to me that the Fourth Amendment, at the very least, acknowledges a Right to Privacy. Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed"

What was the spirit of the debates? That would be the most authoritative way to settle the issue. OTOH, we can study some of the issues the SCOTUS ruled on to give us some sense of the issue.

In 1958, in the case of NAACP v. Alabama, the SCOTUS ruled:

"The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance … Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people' ...
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship".

I won't publish a wall of text, but use that as a starting point to discuss the subject.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 wit: 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".

 

[dblack]

then we get the Ninth

And what do you think it means?

I believe the 9th is pretty vague on one level - the level being the framers left it for others to judge. They were not stupid men. They debated, deliberated, and compromised in order to get the thing done. But they also knew the faults and problems that would arise later. My proof of what I claim here is that like I've always mentioned... the most famous of the framers ended up disagreeing with each other, and and at times disagreeing with their own opinions. People who claim certain things through quotes, are engaging in a disingenuous game of dueling quotes. if they are honest about it.

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.

 

[JBvM]

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment | James A. Woehlke

First, FEE is a partisan group, with an ideological agenda. So they are not the definitive or unbiased source

And second? Did you just skip the article?

I was just over there the past few days. Anything written I have read before.. the reasoning is never original. And if he is the "James Woehlke is a Director for the Tax Policy of the New York Society of CPSs" - I'll pass. He's an accountant, not a constitutional expert I would go to as a source

I've read some of the most recognized, academic experts on the meanings and understandings pf the US constitution. I still have quite a few books on it all. I'm fascinated with it and went into it with no agenda .. not looking to see a liberal or a conservative argument or view.

 

[JBvM]

Then we get people who say a right to _______ (fill in the blank) doesn't exist because it is not enumerated, yet those same people believe in a right to privacy - which is not enumerated

Hypocrisy is the order of the day in modern politics. "It's different when we do it".

See? It was the order of the day, from day one. Just read what the influential of the founding generation had to say about each other days after the ink was dry on the constitution LOL

 

[JBvM]

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 wit: 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".

Not sure what that adds.

Do you people even understand the former colonists .. and how they understood who's speech was protected, and what speech was guaranteed?

 

[Skylar]

then we get the Ninth

And what do you think it means?

I believe the 9th is pretty vague on one level - the level being the framers left it for others to judge. They were not stupid men. They debated, deliberated, and compromised in order to get the thing done. But they also knew the faults and problems that would arise later. My proof of what I claim here is that like I've always mentioned... the most famous of the framers ended up disagreeing with each other, and and at times disagreeing with their own opinions. People who claim certain things through quotes, are engaging in a disingenuous game of dueling quotes. if they are honest about it.

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.

Its not an unfounded concern. The English common law principle of 'Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius' was well known in that era. And as many in our own age demanding that a right be articulated in the constitution to exist demonstrates elegantly......its a concept that many fallaciously cling to in terms of rights.

 

[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.

 

[JBvM]

then we get the Ninth

And what do you think it means?

I believe the 9th is pretty vague on one level - the level being the framers left it for others to judge. They were not stupid men. They debated, deliberated, and compromised in order to get the thing done. But they also knew the faults and problems that would arise later. My proof of what I claim here is that like I've always mentioned... the most famous of the framers ended up disagreeing with each other, and and at times disagreeing with their own opinions. People who claim certain things through quotes, are engaging in a disingenuous game of dueling quotes. if they are honest about it.

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.

Its not an unfounded concern. The English common law principle of 'Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius' was well known in that era. And as many in our own age demanding that a right be articulated in the constitution to exist demonstrates elegantly......its a concept that many fallaciously cling to in terms of rights.

thank you
I love that latin shit: Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

and like the exclusion thing, Judicial Review was not a new concept or unknown in practice. When we do research, of the colonists and their times, we see a far more complex world that the world caricatures painted by ideologues and partisan nitwits with agenda s

 

[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.