Why the Right To Privacy is Not in the Constitution (A History Lesson)

From the Book: The Trouble With Democracy ^ | 2001 | William D. Bairdner

[Puddleglum]

Read the Federalist Papers, letters of Madison, the Founding Fathers, etc.

[headsonpikes]

Spirit of the 4th of July bump.

[tdadams]

There is a reason why they did not explicitly put privacy in the constitution nor why they would consider it a "natural right" falling under the ninth ammendment.

I would have to disagree. Looking at the third, fourth, and ninth amendments in context, I would say that the right to privacy was well in mind. "The right of the people to be secure in their...houses". Seems pretty clear to me.

The problem with natural rights however is that anyone can claim virtually anything is a natural right--including your property, or your life.

You see that as a problem???

There are very few if any, even among the fundamentalists, who would like to see the return to the days of the scarlet letter

You obviously haven't run into some of the Freepers I have.

Manifest harm and morality laws frequently go hand in hand.

Yes, they do, and with the element of manifest harm, those laws are proper. But absent the element of manifest harm, they're simply a tyrannical imposition of someone's personal morality.

A society has to agree to some type of shared morality and values.

OK, how about this. I won't impose my morality on you, and you don't impose yours on me. If I shoot you or damage your property, I've harmed you. I should be held accountable by the law.

[Double Tap]

I don't have an arguement with your post. However, this thread is about the "right to privacy". That, IMO, fits right into what the ninth was suppose to accomplish. That it is a right held by the people that is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[LiteKeeper]

I am a retired Army officer (artillery, MI, and chaplain). I have the privilege of teaching several classes in Colorado Springs to high school, college, and adults on comparative worldviews (biblical vs secular). As I read the various threads, some impress me as good for illustrating different worldviews. So, using some Army terminology, I mark "incidents" as "SPOTREPS" (spot report) and "descriptions of the current world scene" as "SITREPs" (situation reports). INTREP (Intelliegence Report) provides information of an event involving those of the "opposition;" INTSUM (Intelligence Summary) provides more general information. When I get home, I download these SPOTREPs and SITREPs to a database for future use.

Does that help?

[Snuffington]

That, IMO, fits right into what the ninth was suppose to accomplish. That it is a right held by the people that is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Not exactly. According to the Ninth Amendment it may or may not be a right. It doesn't say yes, and it doesn't say no. There may be a right to privacy. There may not. The Ninth Amendment offers no support to either position. It leaves it to the states and the public to work out for themselves.

[steve50]

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. " Washington's Farewell Address 9-19-1796

Sounds like Washington would have required a Constitutional Amendment to allow the government to invade privacy.

[Snuffington]

Sounds like Washington would have required a Constitutional Amendment to allow the government to invade privacy.

Washington was talking about the federal government. Not state governments.