Is the right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution?

Answer 1

It is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but many believe that it falls under the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment.

The Fourth deals with unreasonable searches and seizures, but it does not guarantee a right to privacy.

Answer 2

In a techincal sense, I would say "no".

The Constitution guarantees a degree of privacy in certain areas, as cited by previous posts. However, an overall blanket "right to privacy" at best exists only in court decisions that have arisen. (Such as Roe V. Wade).

Granted, it would have been difficult for the Founding Fathers to foresee such things as wiretapping and electronic surveillence, so therefore there would be no way to deal specifically with these issues in the Constitution. However, the Founding Fathers provided us with a method for dealing with such issues; the Amendments.

If Americans feel that one's right to privacy is being trampled, then those who feel this way should act to form a new Amendment, guaranteeing this so-called right. Until that point, I believe it is dangerous to try to anticipate what the Founding Fathers meant. Therefore, my opinion is that we should stick to the letter of the Constitution as much as possible.

Answer 3

Yes it is!!! Justice Douglas' penumbra still lives. The first, fourth and ninth amendments are the penumbra. Together they form the right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut & Roe v. Wade). It is the totality of the constitution or, more precisely, the bill of rights. It is the forest that most people don't see because of the trees.

Answer 4

The question might desire to no longer be "might desire to the form assure a real to privateness" yet extremely "might desire to the government have the skill to invade individual privateness?" the main marvelous to privateness is an inherent authentic present day interior the creation of a political physique which exists in basic terms beacause and on the will of the folk over which it regulations. Inherent interior the concept of constrained government is a shopper-friendly authentic to privateness which all voters under that government share. If one does might desire to locate constitutional ensures of that privateness, one want basically look on the bill of Rights. on an identical time as the form on no account explicitly denotes this authentic, it fairly is implied interior the wording of the third, 4th, and 5th amendments, which all advise some variety of privateness authentic. For a extra convey founding of the style of authentic, seem to the ninth and 10th amendments. The ninth exchange claims that "the enumeration interior the form of particular rights shall no longer be construed to disclaim or disparage others retained via the folk." this means that as a results of fact a real isn't suggested interior the bill of Rights, it does no longer advise it doesnt exist. This coupled with the life of privateness rights inherent to constrained government, strongly compels us to have self belief the form protects privateness. additionally, the 10th exchange describes that those powers indexed interior the form are the only powers retained via the federal government, and seeing as making regulations against, say, sodomy, drug use, etc are no longer indexed between them, Congress could make no regulation related to them.

Answer 5

Yes....spelled out specifaically?...no

Our rights as citizens are determined by how the supreme court interprets the constitution......they have determined that the constitution gives us the right to privacy

Answer 6

Absolutely not! It was created out of thin air by the Burger Court, citing the "penumbra of rights" found in the Constitution. According to the geniuses on the Court at that time, they knew better than did the Founding Fathers what the Founding Fathers actually meant.

For example, they really meant to include a "right to privacy", but they were simply kidding about the Second and Tenth Amendments.

Answer 7

Yes... The US Senate and the Supreme Court seem to think so. Senate hearings are currently underway to rectify the current "security" environment. The country is waking up and realizing the paranoia will eventually end democracy.

Currently the phone companies are being summoned for breaching our rights.

Yesterday's headlines: Dec. 18 (Bloomberg) --
"Opponents derailed [the admin.s] U.S. Senate legislation to shield telephone companies from lawsuits for aiding warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists, postponing a showdown until next year...

The measure that was stalled in the Senate would protect AT&T Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and other phone companies from multibillion-dollar lawsuits claiming they invaded customers' privacy by cooperating with President George W. Bush's terrorist surveillance program.

Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democratic presidential candidate, refused to agree to Reid's proposal to streamline debate procedures, forcing yesterday's postponement. The immunity provision would be ``a fatal weakening of the rule of law which shuts out our independent judiciary and concentrates power in the executive,'' said Dodd, who interrupted his campaign to return to Washington to oppose the surveillance measure. "

Answer 8

Yes, indirectly.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.

Answer 9

It was till Bush changed the Bill of Rights.

EDIT: Looks like not many here have read the Bill of Rights.

Answer 10

yes; ones property, papers, and personal effects.