Should the constitution guarantee the right to privacy?

Answer 1

The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).

The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy. Use of Substantive Due Process is considered judicial activism, in that it seeks to limit the scope of laws that undermine personal liberty, even if the law doesn't address a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

In the past, (Lochner Era: c.1897-1937, second industrial revolution) Courts used Substantive Due Process in a way that reduced individual protection from exploitation by businesses and the government, such as protecting the "right" of the individual to negotiate contracts with an employer by holding minimum wage and work conditions laws unconstitutional.

Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens.

The Supreme Court first declared an individual's right to privacy in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting doctors from counseling married couples on the use of Birth Control. The Court held the state had no legitimate interest interfering in communication between a doctor and patient, that the nature of the discussion was private.

Griswold set the precedent used to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, (1973) and to decriminalize intimate sexual practices between consenting adults in Lawrence v. Texas,(2003).

In order to determine whether the government has valid cause to interfere in people's lives, the Court applies a "rational basis test" to determine whether the legislation is related to a legitimate government interest.

If the law passes the rational basis test, the Court next applies "strict scrutiny" to determine whether there is a compelling state interest that justifies violating the groups' or individuals' fundamental rights, and whether the law is applied as narrowly as possible to infringe those rights as little possible.

Answer 2

At the time of the framing of the constitution, the concept of 'privacy' was not really differentiated from the concept of 'private property'. It was assumed (reasonably, given the technological level of the time) that protecting people's homes, businesses, and otherphysical property from governmental interference was sufficient to guarantee a citizen's liberty, and there are provisions in the constitution to prevent that kind of thing (such as the 4th amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure - noting that that particular protection has fallen on some fairly hard times). The framers could not have imagined a world in which technology could so thoroughly invade non-material privacy (conversations, personal interactions, leisure time activities, etc) and therefore made no provisions for it. However, the general tenor of the constitution would suggest that the framers would probably have considered this kind of privacy to be a right inherent to the people (rather than the federal government or the individual states).



IMPROVED ANSWER:

It would depend upon the situation. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of privacy in some matters, but, not all.

Sodomy Laws (usually to punish homosexuals for being gay) were found Unconstitutional by the Court, and all citizens, male or female, over the age of 18 or 21 (depending upon the regulations of each state), and both agreeing to consent, have the legal right under the Constitution of the United States to have the Right to Privacy when in sexual contact.

When it comes to Drugs. The United States Supreme Court ruled a few years back that police officers in some cases can enter homes without a search warrant. In such a case, a home that has been trafficking illegal drugs, and has been under surveillance by the police for a reasonable period of time.

A woman has the right to privacy when getting an abortion. However, those who are against the process can demonstrate outside of doctor's officers, or at abortion clinics. As long as those individuals keep a certain distance.

So, when it comes to the subject of privacy, and depending on the situation. You can never really tell which way the Supreme Court will go, until they make their final rulings.

But, it should also be noted the United States Congress, has the power to pass or refuse to pass laws that protect the rights of privacy. However, it is the Supreme Court that has the final say.

Answer 3

The government cannot prevent individuals from freely expressing their opinions. Citizens must have the right to criticize government officials and decisions, and they are allowed to spread unpopular ideas. The First Amendment not only protects individual speech, but also extends to the circulation of ideas in the newspapers, books, magazines, radio, television, and, to some extent, movies. Unlike the press in some other countries, the American press is not subject to prior restraint, that is government censorship of information before it is published.

The freedoms of speech and the press are not unlimited, however. For example, laws prohibit slander and libel. Slander is false speech intended to damage a person's reputation. Libel is similar to slander, except that it applies to written or published statements. Endangering the nation's safety by giving away military secrets or calling for the violent overthrow of the government also are not protected. Courts have also held that speech should be responsible. For example, no one has the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater just to see what happens.

Answer 4

There is no amendment that guarantees the Right to Privacy. But, the amendments that are referenced when arguing the Right to Privacy are the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th.

So, the final answer is 'NO, there is not.'

Answer 5

Freedom of speech is covered by the First Amendment. The text states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing in the text of the constitution about the right to privacy.

Answer 6

Yes, the first ammendment in the constitution gives us the right to free speech, as well as freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.