Right to Privacy

[BeauGeste]

I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?

 

[osan]

I saw Romney waffling on the right to privacy issue in regards to contraception? How would Ron Paul answered that question? I think the exact question was: Do the states have the right to ban contraceptions? In Ron's strict constitutionalist approach is a right to privacy a federal right or one to be decided at the state level?

The right to privacy is neither. It is a fundamental human right and is beyond the legitimate power of third party interference. Get straight thy thinking, sir.

 

[BeauGeste]

are you basing your answer on the constitution? What in the constitution is used to defend right to privacy?

 

[AFPVet]

The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. This has been a difficult one to discuss. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

There is no right to privacy. SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.

Supreme Court Decisions on Liberty
Privacy
As Justice Hugo Black wrote in the Griswold vs. Connecticut opinion, "'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." There is no one sense of privacy which can be extracted from the various Court decisions which have touched upon it. The mere act of labeling something "private" and contrasting it with "public" implies that we are dealing with something which should be removed from government interference.
According to those who emphasize individual autonomy and civil liberties, the existence of a realm of both private property and private conduct should, as much as possible, be left alone by the government. It is this realm which serves to facilitate the moral, personal and intellectual development of each individual, without which a functioning democracy is not possible.
In the cases listed below, you will learn more about how the United States Supreme Court has developed the concept of "privacy" for people in America.
Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.
Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.
Roe v. Wade (1972)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
Should doctors be required to try to save the life of a possibly viable fetus when performing an abortion? A Pennsylvania law created such a requirement, but the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Find out why...
Williams v. Pryor (2000)
The 11th Circuit Court ruled that the Alabama legislature was within its rights to ban the sale of "sex toys," and that people do not necessarily have any right to buy them.
Pottawatomie v. Earls (2001)
How much latitude does a public school have in restricting a student's rights? Can schools force all students to submit to random drug testing merely as a condition of attendance? Can they force all students who participate in activities like band or soccer to submit to random drug testing?



​

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. This has been a difficult one to discuss. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.

Article IV and IX are restrictions on government, not protection of "total privacy".

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I don't recognize the Supreme Court as any authority on human rights, even if that's how the US legal system is set up. The Supreme Court has made a number of stupid and tyrannical decisions.

Even so, there is a legal basis for the right to privacy: the constitutional prohibition on searches without probable cause.

 

[osan]

are you basing your answer on the constitution? What in the constitution is used to defend right to privacy?

I base my response on reason. If our basic rights are equal, that alone establishes a complete and sufficient basis for the right to privacy.

Furthermore, our rights do not exist or predicate upon any human artifact. They exist in full by sole virtue of the equal status of our lives. Because we are equal in this manner, no man stands above another and thereby holds no inherent authority over his fellows. Having no authority, the right to one's privacy is directly implied.

QED.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

There is no right to privacy. SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.

SCOTUS isn't the end-all be-all of determining rights. I reject their rulings on privacy, and I believe Ron Paul does as well.

 

[Aratus]

which SCOTUS session was the best on this, if the current court rulings have drawbacks? just curious...

 

[osan]

The actual right to privacy is implied... most likely under the 9th Amendment. This has been a difficult one to discuss. One must remember, however, that the Constitution does not grant us our rights; rather, it restrains the government from encroaching upon our rights. This is where there is some confusion. The Constitution does not restrict our rights... it restricts the government.

Being unsure of your use of "difficult", I am not sure whether to be perplexed by this statement.

I see nothing difficult about the issue of privacy. The issue is not only simple, but easily decided - so much so that I am confident any nominally intelligent sixth grader could draw the proper conclusions.

The biggest argument against the right is made by ignorant and dishonest people seeking to gain or justify illegitimate powers over other people. The absurdity of such positions finds its apex in the "law enforcement" argument where the appeal to emotion is made. In this argument the common desire for justice is used to great advantage in gaining acceptance of the denial of the right. Justifying the violation of a fundamental human right based on the purported need of the so-called "state" or it agents to investigate crimes, real or suspected so that justice might be served is just about the most trite, tired, clapped-out lie and excuse on the books; and it works like a charm every time.

The only legitimate power "government" has to investigate is through the observation of public behavior. No lids may be opened nor stones overturned in pursuit of evidence of guilt. I am not even sure I accept the notion of "probable cause" as engendered in the Constitution except as a very narrowly defined concept in both philosophical and operational terms. In a free society one does not violate the rights of the vast majority for the sake of apprehending the vanishingly small population of criminals. If as an investigator you cannot make a case against a suspected criminal based on evidence obtained without the aid of prying, then too damned bad. In that case the crook is better than are you and he skates. Shitty as that may seem, the consequences of violating the rights of even the most heinous actors are profound, widespread, and very dangerous to liberty. The truth of this assertion is readily observable in virtually every nation as we bear witness to the endless erosion of human rights on a daily basis. Governments caging, beating, torturing, maiming, and murdering their citizens and other enemies, real or imagined, with impunity on a scale that should appall people, but is generally tolerated largely due to the wild success of the appeals to emotion for "justice", as well as the frantically morbid fear of "terrorists" and other bogeymen.

The general state of human thinking and perception is an unfathomable mess. People are coming around, to be sure, but whether this is occurring at a sufficient rate has yet to be seen, though my optimism is not high. Perhaps worse yet, "governments" are possibly in a position of no longer needing to care whether we are in agreement with their agendas, which begs a question as to the nature of these false institutions and who, exactly, controls them ultimately.

 

[ronpaulitician]

Paul said the right to privacy is found in the fourth amendment, right (in last night's debate)?

I thought I had heard him say, previously, that there was no right to privacy (likely in regard to sodomy laws), but he may have just meant that there is no right to privacy in the fourteenth amendment.

 

[AFPVet]

I don't recognize the Supreme Court as any authority on human rights, even if that's how the US legal system is set up. The Supreme Court has made a number of stupid and tyrannical decisions.

Even so, there is a legal basis for the right to privacy: the constitutional prohibition on searches without probable cause.

Exactly. There has been a lot of discussion about this. We do have a right to privacy... it is not specifically enumerated. This is based on my understanding of Constitutional History. Once more, the Ninth Amendment includes those rights not specifically enumerated.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly. There has been a lot of discussion about this. We do have a right to privacy... it is not specifically enumerated. This is based on my understanding of Constitutional History. Once more, the Ninth Amendment includes those rights not specifically enumerated.

No. There are simply places where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (such as your home or in private consultation with a lawyer).

 

[AFPVet]

No. There are simply places where you have "a reasonable expectation of privacy" (such as your home or in private consultation with a lawyer).

Griswold v. Connecticut is a good source. I also forgot about the Substantive Due Process which also protects your privacy. Oh, and another thing, there is a reason why the 9th Amendment to the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. You see, we have other rights not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution. I highly encourage you to read about the history of the 9th Amendment.

Furthermore, you also have the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments in addition to the 9th Amendment . So too, the landmark decision of Grizwold v. Connecticut and Substantive Due Process can be used to protect substantive rights—such as privacy. I studied this thoroughly in college.

 

[AceNZ]

There is no right to privacy. SCOTUS has upheld this a few times.

SCOTUS has rejected the entire concept of individual rights, not just the right to privacy. They have claimed that rights are privileges granted by government, for reasons that benefit government. Since they are granted, rights can also be revoked at any time, and for any reason.

SCOTUS is part of the problem.

 

[onlyrp]

Paul said the right to privacy is found in the fourth amendment, right (in last night's debate)?

I thought I had heard him say, previously, that there was no right to privacy (likely in regard to sodomy laws), but he may have just meant that there is no right to privacy in the fourteenth amendment.

This is what he actually said.

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution"

This opinion on Lawrence v Texas is pretty much the same as Scalia's, that there's no right to sodomy, and therefore sodomy laws are perfectly legal and Constitutional.

I believe the article is on lewrockwell.com , and if Ron Paul said there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, that's a contradiction to what he said in that article. Is Ron Paul all for privacy until it comes to sodomy (Lawrence v Texas) and abortion (Roe v Wade)?

 

[bolil]

It seems to me that the right to privacy is more the right to defend or protect your privacy, an extension of natural law, like other rights this one can be forfeited, or disregarded, by less prudent individuals. When the state mandates that ALL people forfeit their right to defend their own privacy by coercively restricting their ability to do so we are in desperate straits. It is tragic that the majority of americans actually think that by surrendering their and their countrymens rights they somehow become more secure.

When you think about it a "right" to privacy makes no sense. The right to defend and preserve your privacy makes total sense, again this must be a deliberate voluntary action equally available to any who would choose such a course. Not all will, it is not the government's place to force anyone to make this choice one way or the other for individuals. When the government, through coercive means, violates your right to preserve your privacy by legislating your compliance with anti-privacy measures (SOPA, Patriot Act), they force your choice to forfeit it. I, cry, foul.

On Sodomy: If you choose to engage in sodomy that is your right, and as a Libertarian I would defend it. However, it is not your right to coerce another into not knowing or publicizing your choice.

 

[onlyrp]

It seems to me that the right to privacy is more the right to defend or protect your privacy, an extension of natural law, like other rights this one can be forfeited, or disregarded, by less prudent individuals. When the state mandates that ALL people forfeit their right to defend their own privacy by coercively restricting their ability to do so we are in desperate straits. It is tragic that the majority of americans actually think that by surrendering their and their countrymens rights they somehow become more secure.

When you think about it a "right" to privacy makes no sense. The right to defend and preserve your privacy makes total sense, again this must be a deliberate voluntary action equally available to any who would choose such a course. Not all will, it is not the government's place to force anyone to make this choice one way or the other for individuals. When the government, through coercive means, violates your right to preserve your privacy by legislating your compliance with anti-privacy measures (SOPA, Patriot Act), they force your choice to forfeit it. I, cry, foul.

On Sodomy: If you choose to engage in sodomy that is your right, and as a Libertarian I would defend it. However, it is not your right to coerce another into not knowing or publicizing your choice.

what's an example of something you have "right to" , rather than just "right to defend"?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is what he actually said.

"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution"

This opinion on Lawrence v Texas is pretty much the same as Scalia's, that there's no right to sodomy, and therefore sodomy laws are perfectly legal and Constitutional.

I believe the article is on lewrockwell.com , and if Ron Paul said there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, that's a contradiction to what he said in that article. Is Ron Paul all for privacy until it comes to sodomy (Lawrence v Texas) and abortion (Roe v Wade)?

The Lawrence v Texas position was strictly federalism and jurisdiction; nothing surrounding natural rights.

Ron's position is clearly that it is immoral for government to encroach on your privacy. Your privacy is secured in your property.