Constitutional right to privacy a figment of imagination

In this season of politicized and contentious confirmation hearings to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, some of the sharpest debate and disagreement concerns a so-called "right of privacy" in the U.S. Constitution.

The advocates of a constitutional right of privacy speak as though that right were expressly stated and enumerated in the Constitution. But the text of the Constitution does not contain the word "privacy" or the phrase "right of privacy."

Consequently, in my view, a constitutional "right of privacy" could only be unenumerated and is therefore a figment of the imagination of a majority of the justices on the modern Supreme Court. Let me explain why.

Webster's Dictionary defines "enumerate" as "to name or count or specify one by one." Roget's Thesaurus states that the synonyms for "enumerate" are "to itemize, list, or tick off." Adding the negative prefix "un" reverses the definitions or synonyms so that "unenumerated" means not named, not counted, not specified, not itemized, or not listed.

The right of privacy is unenumerated because neither the word privacy nor the phrase right of privacy appears anywhere in the Constitution or its amendments. Nor does the text contain any words related to other rights the Supreme Court has found to derive from that right, including the right to an abortion and rights related to sexual preference. Neither "abortion" nor "sexual preference" appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

The idea of a constitutional "right of privacy" was not even recognized by the Supreme Court until 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas used the idea in writing for the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court concluded that a state law criminalizing the use of contraception was unconstitutional when applied to married couples because it violated a constitutional right of privacy. That was 176 years after ratification of the Constitution, 174 years after ratification of the Bill of Rights and 97 years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In his opinion, Justice Douglas cited cases that he maintained, "bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition [in Griswold] is a legitimate one."

Note the phrase "which presses for recognition." That phrase reveals that the right of privacy, that is still hotly debated by the American people today, was first recognized by the Supreme Court in this opinion. Note, also, that if the right of privacy had been "named" or "listed" or "specified" or "itemized" in the Constitution, there would have been no need for it to "press for recognition" in this opinion.

What the Supreme Court was really doing with such language was interpreting some of the specific prohibitions enumerated in the Bill of Rights as indicating the existence of a general right of privacy that is not expressly written, and then finding a new specific right, i.e., the right to use contraceptives, as an unstated part of the unstated general right of privacy.

This same technique was used by the Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade, in which the majority stated:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as [1891], the court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, [and] in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Just substitute "a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy" (Roe) for "a married couple's right to use contraceptives" (Griswold) and the Supreme Court again found an unstated specific right within the unstated general right of privacy. Note also that the Supreme Court admitted in the first sentence of the above quotation that "the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy." I think my use of the adjective "unenumerated" in this context is both accurate and appropriate.

According to Webster's, penumbra comes from two Latin roots: paene, meaning almost, and umbra, meaning shadow. The meaning of penumbra, as stated in the dictionary, that is relevant to our understanding of the Supreme Court's opinions regarding the Bill of Rights is "an outlying, surrounding region."

So the use of the word penumbra by the Supreme Court should be understood to mean that in the court's view the right of privacy exists somewhere in the region that surrounds and lies outside of the Bill of Rights.

But there is absolutely nothing in the text of the Bill of Rights about any such surrounding or outlying area, nor is there any catch-all phrase (like "other similar rights") indicating that the rights specifically enumerated exemplify a larger class of rights that were not enumerated. Consequently, whatever rights might be found in the phrase exist only in the mind, contemplation and imagination of each individual reader and are not part of the constitutional text.

Some proponents of a constitutional right of privacy insist that it can be found in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is identical to the liberty clause in the Fifth Amendment; and just as in the case of the Bill of Rights, neither the word "privacy" nor the phrase "right of privacy" appear anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment, much less in the liberty clause.

The fact that the Supreme Court has said that the right of privacy could come from the First, Fourth, Fifth or Fourteenth amendments is solid evidence that the court is just guessing about where it does come from.

The Supreme Court's actions I have just described amount to an attempt to amend the Constitution rather than an interpretation of its text. Let me explain why.

(1) you can delete words that already exist therein; or (2) you can add new words not previously included.

The latter is what the Supreme Court has done, and this action differs fundamentally from the court's legitimate task of interpreting and applying existing words and phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment," "due process," "public use" and "establishment of religion" that appear verbatim either in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.

But the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to amend the Constitution. Neither the Supreme Court (the judicial branch) nor the president (the executive branch) is mentioned in Article V of the Constitution, which defines the process for amending the Constitution.

As defined in Article V, the power to amend lies with the American people, acting through the Congress and the state legislatures. It is "We, the people, of the United States" who are expressly denominated as the acting parties in our original Constitution who "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Likewise, in our Declaration of Independence, one of the truths we declared to be self-evident is that "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Our first president, George Washington, put it this way in his farewell address to the nation in 1796:

"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.

"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 amendment in the way which the Constitution designates but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Similarly Chief Justice John Marshall wrote as follows in his historic opinion in Marbury v. Madison:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.

"From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."

The Constitution does speak to the circumstance of unenumerated rights in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The Ninth Amendment in simple plain English says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right of privacy is not one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and consequently, the Ninth Amendment gives us two instructions: first, we are not "to deny or disparage" the existence of a right of privacy simply because it is not enumerated in the Constitution; and second, we are required to recognize that any such right of privacy is "retained by the people."

Clearly, a right of privacy exists at some level, but it has not been made subject to the Constitution unless and until the people act to make it so.

Likewise, the Tenth Amendment simply states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Constitution does not delegate to the Supreme Court (or any other branch of the U.S. government) any power to define, apply, or enforce whatever may be the right of privacy retained by the people. Similarly, the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit any state in particular, nor all states in general, from defining, applying or enforcing whatever the people of that state may choose as the right of privacy. Therefore, as the Tenth Amendment clearly provides, the power to define, apply or enforce a right of privacy is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

By finding a constitutional right of privacy that is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has "usurped" the roles and powers of the people, the Congress, and the state legislatures.

Shed of all semantical posturing, the critical issue becomes: Does the U.S. Constitution permit amendments by judicial fiat?

Some argue that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing instrument" and that it is right and proper for a majority of the Supreme Court to decide when, where and how the Constitution needs to be changed so as to be "relevant to modern times."

These folks operate on the premise that the Supreme Court is infallible and omnipotent, and that once the Supreme Court has spoken, there is no way to change its ruling.

I disagree with that view. But we as a society must decide which view should prevail.

On several occasions the Supreme Court has held that Congress does not have the power to change by legislation a prior Supreme Court decision. Similarly, nothing in the Constitution instills the president with the power to do so. Therefore, to remedy the "usurpation" by the Supreme Court as to a "right of privacy," we must go to the highest authority — the people.

Thus, the ultimate remedy to this controversy lies not with the individual members of the Supreme Court, but with the people whose will could be expressed in the form of a national referendum either affirming or rejecting the Supreme Court's actions.

Such a national referendum would be a win-win situation. For those who support the power of five justices to amend the Constitution as they see fit, it would afford the opportunity to demonstrate that a majority of the people in each of a majority of the states agree with the Supreme Court and that therefore, the right of privacy should be treated as a part of the Constitution, just as if it had been adopted by the amendment process in Article V.

On the other hand, for those of us who believe the Supreme Court has usurped the power of the people to consent or not to consent to a constitutional change, a national referendum would afford the opportunity to demonstrate that a majority of the people in each of a majority of the states reject the power of the Supreme Court to make constitutional changes.

The will of the people would then override any judicially fabricated constitutional amendment, and the right of privacy would not be treated as part of the Constitution.

This referendum could be called by Congress and placed on the November 2006 ballot for Congressional elections.

This controversy has been brewing for more than 30 years with little sign of resolution. The best thing would be to settle this controversy one way or another as quickly as possible by a vote of all of the people.

As a U.S. citizen, I respectfully petition the Congress to call a national referendum to permit the people to just say no or yes to the Supreme Court's usurpation of the power to amend the Constitution. I invite others who share my views to do likewise.

DeMoss practiced law in Houston for 34 years before being appointed in 1991 by former President George H.W. Bush to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where he now serves.

"So do I have a privacy right that makes it OK to use cocaine?"

Actually, you probably do. Trouble is that you have no cocaine, naturally. To obtain some, you must get it from a third party. That's where your privacy ends, you see.

However, if you can create cocaine in your home, with no outside sources, you could probably win your case. Since you cannot, you cannot.

If you read the Senate debate on the 14th, then it is pretty clear that is what was intended - application of the BOR to the states

So if the BOR didn't apply in the states until the 14th, then were did it apply until that time? Washington DC?

My understanding is that some southern states were arguing that the BOR didn't apply to them, because they wanted to retain slavery (this was immediately after the civil war). It was clearly a bogus claim in the first place, and the 14th is basically saying "the BOR applies within the United States", Duh.

This language from the Bill of Rights would be the very language I would cite to show that our "right of privacy" is in fact quite limited both in its breadth (i.e., it is limited to our "persons", papers, etc." and evidently doesn't include such things as private, sexual acts) and in the ease with which it may be broached (i.e., any "reasonable" search and seizure is permissable). It is very different from, say, the second amendment which appears to protect an absolute personal right (i.e., "shall not be infringed").

"Penundra" is the world that defines the supposed rights found in the Constitution by Socialist jusges on the Supreme Court.

One more reason why the far-left should not be permitted to name sitting federal judges.

BTW why don't we stop calling them "liberals," "socialists," "progressives," and "collectivists" and start calling them what they really are, communists?

However, if you can create cocaine in your home, with no outside sources, you could probably win your case. Since you cannot, you cannot.

The only prohibition that should be possible with federal law on acquiring substances should be interstate commerce. If I acquired it locally, then only state laws should apply. This flies in the face of the problems California residents have been getting from the feds in their medical marijuana issue.

I should have made my example marijuana, because it is easily kept entirely private. People grow it right in their homes, so not even state commerce laws should apply.

I'm just amazed that there haven't been legal cases attempting to use privacy as a defense. I'm also amazed that the anti-abortion crowd doesn't point this contradiction out in order to attack Roe. That's the reason I brought this subject up.

I'm not a druggie, although I resent the government telling me what I can do with my body. It's mine, dammit. I should be able abuse it if I want, whether it's eating too much chicken fried steak or smoking dope.

He is hardly an idiot. The question is whether there is a constitutional right to privacy. Not whether States or other bodies of government could legitimally grant such a right on their own. In Roe vs. Wade and in Griswold vs. Connecticut the SCOTUS managed to find a constitutional right that had remained hidden for centuries.
The proper course was and is to allow the States and the people of the states to decide through the proper legislative actions what the laws should be regarding rights not enumerated in the constitution. That is how a Republic works. Not by Supreme Court Fiat.

So do I have a privacy right that makes it OK to use cocaine?

I believe so. You also have a right to use cocaine or bear arms or advocate home schooling or do anything which hysterical control freaks say poses a "potential" or "theoretical" danger to others. It is irrelevant whether or NOT it is considered a privacy right or even a right to do as you damn well please out in public, again without REALLY posing a danger to others (while respecting LOCAL laws against public nuisances, using drugs in public, public indecency, inciting to riot, etc., of course).

"A right is a claim to freedom of action (including that of securing privacy) which is the basis for the 'basic golden rule,' which is: 'Do nothing unto others you wouldn't want them to do unto you,' or, as Alfred the Great put it, "What ye will that other men should not do to you, that do ye not to other men." (King Alfred's Book of Laws, circa 878 AD, according to Winston Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples)
"As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' Rights must apply to everyone in the same sense at the same time. So rights must therefore be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others. This requires recognizing, respecting and abiding by anyone else's wishes to be left alone whenever he wants, and his wishes to be free to do anything which doesn't violate others. This is why no one can claim a 'right' to interfere with your life in any way without your explicit, personally-given consent for a specified purpose. There can be no such thing as a 'right' for anyone (or any group) to mess with you whenever he wants (or whenever they want) since it obviously isn't applying to YOU in the same sense at the same time.
-- from this page on rights

"subverting it instead to place the right in the hands of the people rather than the Court. "

That is exactly what the Ninth says: "retained by the people".

When introducing the Ninth Madison said it was to prevent those rights from falling into the hands of the federal government.

Now everyone, but the judge and I apparently, wants to read the Ninth to mean the opposite.

I believe you make an interesting point, one that I cannot entirely refute.

The language does show the intent of the founding fathers IMO. It is clear that they wanted the individual citizen to be free from UNJUST search and seazure. I do not think they wanted the individual citizen's rights to supercede the safety of others, or to give that individual cover for the commission of a crime.

I guess I'd be inclined to read in original intent in this language. What was going on circa the time these rights were enacted. What were they trying to achieve?

It is hard for me to fathom the founding fathers trying to set up a situation where the government could monitor your every move, your private matters and your business dealings unless... unless your actions were deemed to be indicative of a crime.

I doubt you think the founding fathers desired to give the government access to our privacy moment by moment unless there was due cause.

Some of the modern inventions we take for granted today, weren't specificly covered under the Bill of Rights. I'd have to say that by extrapolation, they were. Once again, I look to intent. It would be very hard for me to think the founding fathers wanted our government to be able to mine our emails or capture our voice communications, without due justifiable cause.

Perhaps you see our founding fathers in a different light. I see the provision of the Bill of Rights and or the Amendments to the Constitution as the very proof of what their intent was. And I bleieve we should error on the side of that original intent as much as possible.

"intended - application of the BOR to the states"

Fine, arguably the federal courts were given power to ensure that the enumeration of certain rights in the state constitutions could not be construed to deny or disparage other rights held by the people, but that is not what people are advancing here.

Most stupidly, they are arguing the Ninth gives the federal courts power to construct the enumeration of rights in the 14th Amendment to deny or disparge other unenumerated rights. It's fantastic!

When faced with deciding whether a state law conflicts with the Ninth a federal judge looks for evidence- not theories.
First in consideration is the state constitution, second is state law, third is tradition and practise.
If that evidence does not support the contention that something is a "right", then it isn't.

It is that way because rights don't exist in a vacuum. Most notably they conflict with each other and it is in the power only of the people who retain those rights to decide what those "unenumerated" rights are.
Giving the power to judges to determine what rights we retain is tyranny as sure as giving them the right to decide what property we retain- without following rules of construction and evidence- would be.

A state law is prima facie evidence of the nature of the rights retained by the people. Elected legislatures aren't perfect, but they're a far sight better than appointed tribunals at reflecting the will of the people.

NO federal judge has ever used the Ninth Amendment to justify overturning a state law. Hopefully none will be convinced to do so while I'm watching the playoffs- or I'll sue!

I'm not saying the Ninth Amendment is being subverted. I'm saying that the appellant's argument in Griswold is being subverted.

The ostensible purpose of the Ninth was to place the presumptive burden on the Constitution to prove that it was the repository of rights, rather than on The People to prove that they were.

It was never expected that the Constitution would provide an exhaustive list of the rights of a free people. But the absence of a certain right did not mean that it didn't exist. The PRESENCE of a right (an "enumerated right") put that right under the domain of the Constitution. But rights could still exist whether they were explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And those rights were reserved to The People.

Rights are not granted by the states or other bodies of government. They are granted by God and God alone. The 9th admendment clearly states that simply because a right is not listed in the constitution does not in anyway imply the right does not exist.

The right to privacy is not listed in the constitution.
The right to privacy exists nonetheless.

The right to privacy was not hidden for centuries. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... Indeed the fourth admendment declares your right to privacy as it concerns to your papers, person, effects, and home. Perhaps you are ready to grant unfeathered access to your private papers and home, but I am not quite ready to give up my right to privacy.

The author is discussing the US Constitution and claims the right to privacy does not exist because it is not specifically listed in this document. He is wrong.

And you are wrong if you believe the states can pass laws that contradict the US Constitution.

Our rights exist whether listed in a document or not, regardless of what document you are discussing. States or papers do not grant me rights. Only God (or natural law if you prefer) can grant rights. States on the other hand, infringe on rights. Sometimes justly, sometimes not.

Now with all this said, the right to privacy is not absolute. It does not provide me or anyone else a shield to kill an unborn child or plot terrorist attacks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.