Really?? I have a pretty neat copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I had framed up and hung in my office. I got them at a souvenir store in Chattanooga, and they look really nice in and old-time frame. But that's beside the point...
From time to time, I read the text of the articles and the amendments in the BOR. After 10 years, I guess I've probably read the documents a dozen times or so.
And you know, after all that, I have yet to find that elusive article, that single amendment, that one guaranteed "right to privacy" that so many claim resides somewhere in these documents.
So could you help me out and tell me exactly where I find this right to privacy? I would really like to know; and please be specific.
Thanks! L_L
So could you help me out and tell me exactly where I find this right to privacy? I would really like to know; and please be specific.
Here:
"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."
The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.
It can be argued that the Fourth Amendment applies directly to the actions of an over-reaching government that has apparently coerced a number of public-service communications providers into allowing unrestricted cataloging and data-mining of private records.
These actions could be compared to the government attempting to access medical records, gun registration records, banking records, or even library records.
I am not claiming to be a constitutional attorney or even an expert. I do know, from my perspective, that I don't want the government to have unrestricted access to personal private information.
It is necessary for a judge to issue a court order to access these types of records in private or criminal actions. The government needs to abide by the same laws.
As I said originally, It is my opinion.
I'll let Chief Justice Roberts explain.
Specter: Judge Roberts, do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?
Roberts: Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
It's protected by the Fourth Amendment which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects and papers is protected.
It's protected under the First Amendment dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise.
It protects privacy in matters of conscience.
It was protected by the framers in areas that were of particular concern to them. It may not seem so significant today: the Third Amendment, protecting their homes against the quartering of troops.
And in addition, the court has -- it was a series of decisions going back 80 years -- has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause.
The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well.
And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution.
John Roberts Confirmation Hearing ...