Does the Constitution guarantee Americans a right to privacy?

[2aguy]

Do we?

In some cases yes....but it does not allow murder of babies. The 5th Amendment and 4th Amendment would be the place where the right to privacy can be found...

But I still can't find where you are allowed to commit murder if the human is just small enough....

 

[miketx]

View attachment 644946

I'm not female and I wouldn't touch yours with miketx 's bag of dicks even if he begged me.

*****CHUCKLE*****

My bag is slowly being depleted thanks to all these thieving leftists!

 

[struth]

No children being killed........pay attention. But I guess you are like Tom Heck.....we do NOT have the right to privacy.

you have a right to privacy but it’s not absolute

having a right to privacy doesn’t mean you can drop acid in your house, or murder someone i. your house. You still have to follow the laws

 

[BackAgain]

I just got told by a Republican running for Governor of Nevada that we do not....Tom Heck.

Your question is misleading. On a precise technical reading, the Constitution is silent on a right to privacy. That said, it has been determined that the right to privacy is inherently part of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights which are explicitly set forth.

The reasoning is along these lines. If a right is Constitutionally guaranteed, then the things that are essential to such rights are implicitly guaranteed. If a person has a right to be secure in his or her papers and things in his or her own home from government intrusion (absent an authorization from a neutral magistrate), then there must exist an underlying right to privacy.

This is why the Griswold case said that there is a guarantee of our right to privacy. It’s not an absolute since we know it can yield. But it is a right implicit in our Constitution. I doubt Griswold will ever be overruled. It makes too much sense (even if it was supported by some gibberish about “penumbras”).

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

All the problems like dealing in cash, gang wars, theft, car jacking, etc., all result from criminalization of drugs.
Same things happened when Prohibition made alcohol illegal.
Profits go through the roof, but has to all be cash, so results in thefts, turf wars, gangs, murder spikes, etc.
ODs are a separate matter.
With Prohibition of alcohol, there also was a purity problems, like of methanol instead of ethanol, just like fentanyl contamination.

I agree. Legalize and regulate

 

[sartre play]

There are people who kill children or baby's, I have a real problem with the to far reach calling very early pregnancy's children,
as miscarriage is very common. Woman feel bad enough when they miscarriage. so now you call them children? Are you demanding a funeral?

 

[Pellinore]

A lot of people here are responding as if the 'right to privacy' and 'right to abortion' are the same thing. Their answer to the OP's question is therefore "Abortion should be illegal, therefore there is no right to privacy."

There is such a thing as concurrent opinion, which is when someone agrees with the decision but for a different reason. Roe v. Wade had several, including the protection of liberty without due process (under the Fifth Amendment) and the existence of unenumerated rights (under the Ninth).

The right to privacy was just one of several paths of thought that led the Justices to rule on Roe, so it is perfectly legitimate to state (as 2aGuy does a few posts up) that you disagree with the ruling on Roe, which still acknowledging that the right to privacy exists, which it does.

 

[task0778]

This is why the Griswold case said that there is a guarantee of our right to privacy. It’s not an absolute since we know it can yield. But it is a right implicit in our Constitution. I doubt Griswold will ever be overruled. It makes too much sense (even if it was supported by some gibberish about “penumbras”).

It seems to me that the boundaries for the implied right to privacy is something for legislatures at the national and state levels to decide. NOT the Courts, even the Supreme Court cuz that is judicial activism that should be overturned. It shouldn't be within the purview of the SC to create the right to privacy based on implications and then create a right to abortion based on an implied right to privacy. IMHO, Griswold was a bad ruling and Roe is even worse.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Wrong.
Clean air and water are long standing inherent rights going way back in British Common Law, that was recognized as the basis for US Common Law.
It is just not enumerated because almost all individual rights are not and should not be enumerated, since they are infinite.
And there was not that much abuse of water or air back then.

Gun ownership became paramount to the Founders because they were forced to rebel with arms from a corrupt crown that wanted to impose gun control in order to prevent individual rights.
But the fact gun rights are no longer as paramount, does not mean armed rebellion is not cyclically necessary on a regular basis, about ever 400 years or so. So gun control is incredibly foolish and short sighted. The way to reduce violence is to solve social and economic inequality, not gun control.

Which doesnt make the case that any rights are God given. They are fought for by men and vary from country to country.

Gun ownership is not a right. Its a sentence.,

 

[BackAgain]

Which doesnt make the case that any rights are God given. They are fought for by men and vary from country to country.

Gun ownership is not a right. Its a sentence.,

The right to own a gun is a right. In fact, it’s a tautology.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I'm not female

Since when does being female have anything to do with having a uterus?

 

[BackAgain]

It seems to me that the boundaries for the implied right to privacy is something for legislatures at the national and state levels to decide. NOT the Courts, even the Supreme Court cuz that is judicial activism that should be overturned. It shouldn't be within the purview of the SC to create the right to privacy based on implications and then create a right to abortion based on an implied right to privacy. IMHO, Griswold was a bad ruling and Roe is even worse.

I don’t know. I don’t like the “penumbra” shit. But I do agree that some things are necessarily implicit in the Constitution. Since I end up agreeing that there must be an implicit right to privacy inherent in certain other Constitutionally guaranteed rights, I’m ok with Griswold’s holding.

But the tortured logic by which Griswold allegedly yields Roe v. Wade doesn’t support the latter. Dobbs, if decided along the lines of the leaked draft opinion, corrects that nonsensical judicial legislating. And on that latter note, I suppose it is a legislative determination as to the point at which a “life” becomes a “person.”

 

[BackAgain]

Since when does being female have anything to do with having a uterus?

I can’t conceive. Can you?

 

[task0778]

Since when does being female have anything to do with having a uterus?

I always thought those 2 things kinda went together. If you have a uterus you are a female, and vice versa.

 

[task0778]

I don’t know. I don’t like the “penumbra” shit. But I do agree that some things are necessarily implicit in the Constitution. Since I end up agreeing that there must be an implicit right to privacy inherent in certain other Constitutionally guaranteed rights, I’m ok with Griswold’s holding.

I'm not. I do not believe that the Supreme Court should be deciding that an implied right is a constitutional right when it ain't even mentioned in the text. Griswold took an implied right to privacy and then built an implied right to contraceptives on top of that. We can maybe agree that the implied right to privacy, but IMHO it is not up to the SC to determine how that right should be treated. To do so is judicial activism IMHO, it's solely up to the US Congress to legislate any civil right that isn't explicitly defined. Or let the states do it on their level if Congress doesn't.

 

[Supposn]

Privacy for thee, not for me?
Refer to https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/privacy-thee-not-me\

Excerpt of a letter to the editors of the Washington Post: “According to the May 9 Metro article “A protest for choice at home,” people are protesting in front of the Chevy Chase home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The report said, “Neighbors tell [the protester] this kind of protest is disrespectful in a place they believe should be a private family-friendly escape from bitter Washington politics.”

Everyone would do well to remember that Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues have reportedly “found” that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone privacy. And, with no right to privacy, Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues plan to eviscerate a settled right that people in this country have had for 50 years.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm not. I do not believe that the Supreme Court should be deciding that an implied right is a constitutional right when it ain't even mentioned in the text. Griswold took an implied right to privacy and then built an implied right to contraceptives on top of that. We can maybe agree that the implied right to privacy, but IMHO it is not up to the SC to determine how that right should be treated. To do so is judicial activism IMHO, it's solely up to the US Congress to legislate any civil right that isn't explicitly defined. Or let the states do it on their level if Congress doesn't.

I hear you. But you and I just disagree on that point. My analysis is like this: the Constitution has to be construed to make sense. It would make no sense (in my estimation) to give our government authority over a certain area of national concern but to simultaneously deny it the power to accomplish that goal. In such instances, the power has to be inherent.

We created a constitutional republic of limited and enumerated powers but we didn’t create a eunuch. Implicitly it has to have at least sufficient power to do its job.

Since we left it to the SCOTUS to address cases and controversies concerning the Constitution, it seems to me that the Court must have enough latitude to answer such questions. If that occasions the determination of whether certain rights are implicit, then my conclusion is that the Court has to be able to make exactly such decisions. (And Congress via the Amendment provision — or the States — can then place a check on such SCOTUS determinations.).

 

[Stormy Daniels]

We created a constitutional republic of limited and enumerated powers but we didn’t create a eunuch. Implicitly it has to have at least sufficient power to do its job

In that case, the Articles of Confederation would never have needed to be replaced.

 

[BackAgain]

Privacy for thee, not for me?
Refer to https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/13/privacy-thee-not-me\

Excerpt of a letter to the editors of the Washington Post: “According to the May 9 Metro article “A protest for choice at home,” people are protesting in front of the Chevy Chase home of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The report said, “Neighbors tell [the protester] this kind of protest is disrespectful in a place they believe should be a private family-friendly escape from bitter Washington politics.”

Everyone would do well to remember that Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues have reportedly “found” that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone privacy. And, with no right to privacy, Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues plan to eviscerate a settled right that people in this country have had for 50 years.

Sophomoric ^ tripe. Nothing inherent in the draft Dobbs case has any justice denying a right to privacy. Stop making up bullshit.

 

[BackAgain]

In that case, the Articles of Confederation would never have needed to be replaced.

That ^ doesn’t follow in ANY way from what I posted.