A constitutional right to privacy?

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Show me in the constitution where it guarantees a right to privacy. Is the word privacy even in the constitution?

This question is aimed at those saying we should only go by the constitution.
 
it's called the Fourth Amendment.

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.

This means that unless properly submitted evidence and affidavits are reviewed by a judge and then a warrant describing specifically whats to be searched is issued, we have a right to privacy.

not that it's adhered to much nowadays....thanks libs and cons.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's called the Fourth Amendment.

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.

This means that unless properly submitted evidence and affidavits are reviewed by a judge and then a warrant describing specifically whats to be searched is issued, we have a right to privacy.

not that it's adhered to much nowadays....thanks libs and cons.
Click to expand...

Against unreasoinable searches and siezures yes. But that is not the only aspects of privacy. I suggest you research the Brandeis (sp?) memos.

The right to privacy from those outside of the government is what I speak of.
the media for instance.
 
uscitizen said:
Against unreasoinable searches and siezures yes. But that is not the only aspects of privacy. I suggest you research the Brandeis (sp?) memos.

The right to privacy from those outside of the government is what I speak of.
the media for instance.
Click to expand...

that's a huge difference. The constitution and the bill of rights only applies as a limitation upon government entities and not private entities. You have (supposedly) private property rights that you would have the right to enforce even against private entities.

The problems that we face nowadays has to deal with either an ultra liberal or neo con aspect as it pertains to civil/criminal judicial branches. Where your front yard used to be considered private property, some states have now dictated that if your front porch is accessible or viewable by the public, then it is not considered private property for the purposes of having privacy rights. (some states that is).

You have a right to make your private property, private. You have a right to keep aspects of your life private, however, if you've previously aired some portion of your private life to others, it is no longer considered private and the media will use every available means to exploit that, if they feel the need to.
 
uscitizen said:
But not a constitutional right to privacy of your business records, tax records, etc.
Click to expand...

It's protected by legal statute.

The constitution is supposed to protect you from the government (although it is only enforced by the government itself and so is always on shaky grounds), the government is supposed to protect you from other people.
 
The Court has ruled that you have a right to privacy where there is an expectation of privacy. Phone booths are considered a private area, so the Court stopped the govt. from being able to use a wiretap on one as evidence against a defendent. The inside of a house is also expected to be private, so the Court threw out evidence obtained by heat/IR scanners that the DEA used to locate where in the house a man was growing marijuana (heat lights registered on the IR scanner, giving them probable cause for a warrant).

But since your house is in plain view of the public, anything that happens outside on your property is not protected by privacy rights, and this has also been upheld by the Court, so the Paparrazzi can continue to pester celebrities.
 
Yes 3D, courts and legislatures can set privacy standards, but it is not a constitutional right.
That was my point of this thread.
 
To further this:

Is it a constitutional issue to have guns registered and know who owns them?

The constitution says we can own and bear them, but makes no statement about the privacy regarding the ownership of guns.
 
then you agree there is no constitutional right to abortion...

you're somewhat right about the right to privacy, the courts call it a fundamental right and get that from their interpretation of the 14th amendment...so, one could argue that it is a constitutional right, but you are correct in that the constitution is "expressly" silent on the matter
 
Yurt said:
then you agree there is no constitutional right to abortion...

you're somewhat right about the right to privacy, the courts call it a fundamental right and get that from their interpretation of the 14th amendment...so, one could argue that it is a constitutional right, but you are correct in that the constitution is "expressly" silent on the matter
Click to expand...

Yes a judicial intrepretation. Just as donating money is free speech. Or paying someone to speak for you.
The founders apparently did not want to delve that deep into personal lives. And yes abortion methods existed in their times as well.

but what about my question on gun registration?

Abortion diversion aborted :D
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
To further this:

Is it a constitutional issue to have guns registered and know who owns them?

The constitution says we can own and bear them, but makes no statement about the privacy regarding the ownership of guns.
Click to expand...

the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation. To my knowledge, registration laws that HAVE been challenged were always ruled constitutional, but this was before Heller. Now that the 2nd is without a doubt an established individual right, the only thing concerning registration has been heller and that only goes so far as to say that since Heller didn't object to a license, that the issue didn't need to be covered by the courts that day.

IMO, gun registration laws serve no purpose since criminals would not be required to register their guns anyway, so the law would be moot.
 
usc....are you willing to then throw out the scotus rulings that outlawed sodomy laws as there is no express constitutional right to butt sex
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation. To my knowledge, registration laws that HAVE been challenged were always ruled constitutional, but this was before Heller. Now that the 2nd is without a doubt an established individual right, the only thing concerning registration has been heller and that only goes so far as to say that since Heller didn't object to a license, that the issue didn't need to be covered by the courts that day.

IMO, gun registration laws serve no purpose since criminals would not be required to register their guns anyway, so the law would be moot.
Click to expand...

And all crimes are committed by previous felons with unregistered firearms?
 
Yurt said:
usc....are you willing to then throw out the scotus rulings that outlawed sodomy laws as there is no express constitutional right to butt sex
Click to expand...

What happens between consenting adults is their business and not that of the government. My opinion legal opinions may differ.

What about gun registration?
 
uscitizen said:
Yes a judicial intrepretation. Just as donating money is free speech.
The founders apparently did not want to delve that deep into personal lives. And yes abortion methods existed in their times as well.

but what about my question on gun registration?
Click to expand...

i think the courts are on your side, i don't believe the heller court would be against registration. if i recall, the heller court, in dicta, indicated that registration that was not unduly burdensome or whatever they said, would not be unconstitutional. in other words, the court really did not directly rule on it, but if registration did not infringe that right, they would not have a problem with it. i could be wrong, but that is what i remember.

as to my opinion...you don't have to register your bible, you don't have to register with the government what newspapers you read....so why should we have to register guns? simply because it MAY help solve a crime....i don't buy that as i don't believe registration has helped solve that many crimes or stop that many crimes....
 
uscitizen said:
What happens between consenting adults is their business and not that of the government. My opinion legal opinions may differ.

What about gun registration?
Click to expand...

so then you believe there is a constitutional right to butt sex or what happens between two adults...please point out where in the constitution butt sex is protected
 
"the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation"

And this has proven to be untrue, except in cases of crimes or mental instability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top