Do you believe the right to privacy is implied in the Constitution of the U.S?

Question

I expect a wide array of diverse answers on this one. I intentionally kept the question vague because I'm interested in the quality of an answer, not necessarily what I personally believe it to be. I would simply ask that we keep our answers civil, whether you're liberal or conservative. And if you would, please give an explanation as to why you believe the right to privacy is implied or not. And if you believe it's not implied but is literally stated within the Consitution, please give your reason/s for believing thus. Thank you.

Answer 1

Procedurally, yes. Substantively, no.

It often seems as if many people simply do not understand the difference between procedure and substance.

If a law enforcement official suspects you of a crime -- any kind of crime at all -- and they proceed to investigate you, then you have certain rights that the officers must respect or else they are violating your "privacy." These are procedural issues, not substantive ones, and they are spelled out generally by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and the case law which the US Supreme Court has handed down when it purported to be interpreting those amendments.

In a substantive sense, the Third Amendment also guarantees "privacy," but only in one very narrow and specific way as spelled out there.

What has happened in the U.S. Supreme Court is that there have been a handful of decsions which expanded the concept of "privacy" into substantive issues instead of just procedural issues. It began basically with Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942, and then has continued with Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Roe v. Wade, 1973, and many others. In these various cases, the Court was NOT concerned with what procedures law enforcement officials had used to investigate crimes, but instead was concerned with what the legislature tried to prohibit people from doing. That is, the Court was attacking the substance of laws which had been made by legislatures, not with the procedures of enforcing those laws. The Court was effectively asserting more control over what laws legislatures may pass.

Nothing in the Constitution addresses "privacy" in a substantive way (except maybe the Third Amendment, as I noted, which has a very narrow and explicit meaning). Nothing in the Constitution addresses "reproductive freedom," nor "the right to control your own body," nor "the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, and of the mystery of human life." Nothing in the Constitution gives permission for the Court to proclaim for itself that it has the "obligation ... to define the freedom of all."

In both 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey and in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, the Court proclaimed: "Our obligation is to define the freedom of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The first part of the statement is false and the second part is absolutely hypocritical ! Since the Constitution does NOT, in fact, permit or obligate anybody to define liberty, what the Court has, in fact, been doing is imposing its own moral code on this country !

"A judge who looks outside the historic Constitution looks inside himself and no where else." -- Robert Bork.

Answer 2

First of all lets start with the definition of privacy. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity although it is often most highly valued by people who are publicly known. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security—one in which trade-offs between the interests of one group and another can become particularly clear.
We all have a social security number. So the Government knows how much you make and where you work. If you drive you have a drivers license. We get credit checks done to get a loan to buy a house or a car. We use credit cards and debit cards to buy things we need. We give up more and more privacy for convenience To get a decent job they run background checks. The auto insurance guys can tell you if you got a speeding ticket.
What I am trying to say is "they" know who you. This entire debate has nothing to do with terrorists or illegal immigrates. We have a wide open boarder on the north and to the south. It is all about controlling the PRODUCTIVE middle class.
Sounds like a good idea.
Good or bad its still a federal mandate. (The 10th Amendent)
The other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights all refer, in some way, to the rights of individuals. But the 10th Amendment protects powers, not rights—and of the states, not individuals. Although the states had to give up many powers in order to create the new Constitution, they insisted an amendment be added that affirmed their ongoing role in the governmental design. In fact, the 10th Amendment was the only part of the Bill of Rights that was recommended by all the state conventions that submitted proposed amendments. From the beginning of the nation, the proper balance between the powers of the federal government and the powers of the states caused major dissension, culminating in the Civil War. And in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, this issue “will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.”

Answer 3

In my reading of the Constitution I have never found a right to privacy implied or otherwise. You could make a case that the protection from unlawful search and seizure could by extension by a right to privacy, but only within your own home. Once you step out into the public domain this right of privacy no longer exists. I do believe that we should be protected from certain government intrusion into our lives. I just don't know if this is literally out in the Constitution to extent which some wish it were.

Answer 4

Well if not it should be...I am for anything that keeps big brother at bay. So if you don't like the implied thing...then lets get a pen out and write it on the paper then make it expressed. Liberals and Conservatives both have to protect their freedoms at all costs because the growing power of the federal government will rob you of your birthright of living in a free country. When information flows at the speed of light, soon you'll wake up with a BAR code tattooed on the back of your neck and GPS chip in your butt cheek and they will tell you this is a good thing. Maybe I'm paranoid, but people of power are very predictable.

Answer 5

It is implied by the Ninth Amendment. Other amendments deal with specific privacy issues. The Constitution gives specific powers to the Congress (Art. I, Section 8); the Ninth reserves all others to the states or to the people. Since privacy is not listed in Section 8, it is implied by Amendment IX.

Answer 6

The Fourth Amendment is fairly self-explanatory:

"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."

Beyond that, the U.S. Constitution does not grant rights; it acknowledges them. What it does grant is specifically-enumerated powers (not rights) to the government, which are, in theory, to be used only within those enumerated parameters. Rights and powers not specifically enumerated are delegated to the people, not to the government. As the government has no constitutional authority to violate privacy (per Amendment Four), the right to privacy is thereby inalienable.

Even without a constitution, men and women are their own masters. Any government which claims the power to rule them, operates without consent, takes their money, disarms them, and violates their privacy . . . is illegitimate.

Answer 7

I haven't found it. The closest is protection against unreasonable search. Not really the same thing.

Answer 8

Yes I do. The framers had as their intention that we had all rights unless expressly made unlawful.