Constitituional Right To Privacy?

[Starkist]

The phrase has been thrown around since before most of us were born, yet where do you really find this in the document itself?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20030626.shtml

What can of worms was opened when the Court first started seeing a right to privacy in between the lines of the Constitution?

[Gerudo]

well, so much for our right of 'life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness'...

i mean lapdances :D

[Blonde799]

Oh great. My first night at a club will be dull.:p

[TheGeepster]

The first point is that the Texas anti-sodomy laws (which aren't largely enforced anyways) is that the case which brought it on trial was a fluke case. A neighbor reported a burglary at the residence and it was only acting on that that law enforcement caught them and prosecuted them.

And activists commenting on the case aren't commenting on it as a privacy case. For them, it's about forcing states to accept (not just tolerate) "alternate lifestyles", springboarding into special rights.

Now I'm not fully decided whether or not sodomy laws (which are about more than just homosexual acts, btw) are a good idea or not, but nothing about law itself is unconstitutional.

For one, there is no right to privacy. If there was a right to privacy, then there would no way to prosecute cases where a child or spouse is physically abused in the privacy of their own home. It happened in the privacy of the home, and after all, there is a right to privacy.. Law Enforcement discovering illegal goods, such as crack cocaine, and/or illicit firearms would be unable to prsecute that, because it was found within the privacy of the person's home.

Clearly this is unacceptable..

(George Will also makes some very good points in his article, including the question of where the line should be drawn.)

[Ganonator]

Originally posted by TheGeepster
For one, there is no right to privacy. If there was a right to privacy, then there would no way to prosecute cases where a child or spouse is physically abused in the privacy of their own home. It happened in the privacy of the home, and after all, there is a right to privacy.. Law Enforcement discovering illegal goods, such as crack cocaine, and/or illicit firearms would be unable to prsecute that, because it was found within the privacy of the person's home. Do realize though that any breach of public safetly CAN violate anybody rights. This is why you cannot take guns to school.

As far as this being a landmark case against sodomy, I'm happy. There are too many people in this damn country that think they know what's right for other people's interests. Fuck off.

[Starkist]

Originally posted by Ganonator
As far as this being a landmark case against sodomy, I'm happy.

The point isn't whether or not the law was right or wrong, but whether or not it is outlined in the Constitution. What the court should have done, in my opinion, is let the law stand. Then the legislature could change it as necessary. If you pay close attention to the article I linked to, you'll see that by claiming a 'right to privacy' exists in the Constitution and thereby makes this law unconstitutional sets a dangerous precedent, leaving many laws open for striking.

[inori]

The legal basis for a right to privacy stems from the fourth amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the ninth and tenth amendments, which set forth the principle that just because a right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that it does not exist.

It is longstanding legal precedent that a right to privacy does exist; however, whether it should have been applied in the case Starkist cited is doubtful.

[Starkist]

The way the ninth amendment is worded leaves so many things open. I could claim a right to free ice cream and find a basis (albeit shaky) in the Constitution.

[AlexMax]

Well then you go do that. Seriously.

[C-Dawg]

This case is a prime example of how things break down along lines of politics when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. People who are more conservative will whine about how there is really no "right to privacy" in the Constitution... yet these same people will no doubt proclaim that there is an obvious "right to contract", or a "right to spend your own damn money", etc.

This is what I was saying in a thread a few days ago. The Constitution's laws don't really decide cases- people's interpretation of the Constitution decides cases. So don't whine about how the Constitution never uses the words "Right to Privacy"... instead, debate the merits of the issue at hand with the politics or philosophy that are truly driving your opinion.

My view? I agree with Swift's characterization of human activity into two areas- those that affect others adversely, and those that do not. I know there's no bright line between the two, but I think it's pretty clear that what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom has a pretty minimal chance of hurting others, and so I'd rather see less government regulation of that. Therefore, I'll interpret the Constitution to invoke a right to privacy as legal justification.

(To make my political views more clear, ask yourself this: which affects other people adversely to a greater extent- allowing homosexual congress or allowing monopolizing business practices?)

The only arguments FOR sodomy laws are going to run something like this: 1. disingenious arguments that the Constitution "just can't be read that way", which are covers for 2. arguments that homosexual conduct is in some way "bad". Either religiously, or because it degrades family values, or because a gay man beat you up and took your lunch money when you were a kid, whatever. I don't find any of these reasons convincing, but hey, that's why I'm not a Republican.

-C

[inori]

I'm a Republican, and I disagree with sodomy laws... in fact, I disagree on the same basis as C-Dawg; they're absolutely pointless. As long as two guys don't try to involve me in anything that happens in their bedroom, I really don't care what they do.

I'm just not sure that I agree that the judiciary has the task of repealing such laws... that's traditionally a legislative function, and separation of powers was written into the Constitution for a reason. (Note that I didn't say I disagreed either; in fact, I'm actually undecided at the moment. I do also understand the concept of judicial review.)

[Zaphod Q. IX]

Originally posted by C-Dawg
This case is a prime example of how things break down along lines of politics when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. People who are more conservative will whine about how there is really no "right to privacy" in the Constitution... yet these same people will no doubt proclaim that there is an obvious "right to contract", or a "right to spend your own damn money", etc.

This is what I was saying in a thread a few days ago. The Constitution's laws don't really decide cases- people's interpretation of the Constitution decides cases. So don't whine about how the Constitution never uses the words "Right to Privacy"... instead, debate the merits of the issue at hand with the politics or philosophy that are truly driving your opinion.

My view? I agree with Swift's characterization of human activity into two areas- those that affect others adversely, and those that do not. I know there's no bright line between the two, but I think it's pretty clear that what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom has a pretty minimal chance of hurting others, and so I'd rather see less government regulation of that. Therefore, I'll interpret the Constitution to invoke a right to privacy as legal justification.

(To make my political views more clear, ask yourself this: which affects other people adversely to a greater extent- allowing homosexual congress or allowing monopolizing business practices?)

The only arguments FOR sodomy laws are going to run something like this: 1. disingenious arguments that the Constitution "just can't be read that way", which are covers for 2. arguments that homosexual conduct is in some way "bad". Either religiously, or because it degrades family values, or because a gay man beat you up and took your lunch money when you were a kid, whatever. I don't find any of these reasons convincing, but hey, that's why I'm not a Republican.

-C

And this, children, is a "Libertarian".

Don't be afraid, we've got a shock collar on him.

His dangerous thoughts about "freedom" and "liberty" can't hurt you. Nor can his words. Drown them out with any video game or pop song you can find.

This dinosaur will return to the grey, spongey earth soon enough.

Move along...nothing to see here except your birthright freedoms passing you by. Your destiny, your fate...

Nothing at all, really...

-_-

[TheGeepster]

I lean towards thinking that the anti-sodomy laws are bad because they are unenforceable. Generally speaking, I want government to stay out of people's lives without good cause. And even though I vehemently disagree with sodomy, this does seem to be a case where the states ought to stay out.

I understand the sentiment behind it, though. It's just too weak a cause.

That said, I still believe the Supreme Court did the wrong thing here because it has placed within the Constitution a right not found in there, and one with very dangerous implications elsewhere. In short, there was no constitutional issue even if the law was a bad one.

It has the effect of allowing groups now to seek special rights because now they have a place to start from.

By the way, the right to spend your money in any way you wish (legitimate federal, state, and county laws notwithstanding) is part of that "pursuit of happiness" thing. However, it seems to be able to be limited in some of the same ways as privacy. For example, a 12 year old cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol. But this falls under protection of minors, rather than the liberty to spend money as you see fit.

Contracts, however, seem to be more of a legal bond between two parties. In what sense are you calling it a right? Contracts are more of an obligation.