3 ms·
As you correctly noted, the Constitution explicitly does not afford a right to privacy and other intangibles. Rather, it protects you and your stuff from physic
by d0ugie 12y ago
As you correctly noted, the Constitution explicitly does not afford a right to privacy and other intangibles. Rather, it protects you and your stuff from physical search and seizure.
As the late, great Justice Hugo Black argued[1] in his dissent in Katz, eavesdropping did indeed exist, and existed well before, the time the Constitution was drafted. In ancient times - and to say that the Framers overlooked this is utter poppycock! Yet, for whatever reason, spying on your privacy was dodged when those Framers and the legislative branch wrote the land's laws and amendments to it.
I know it's tempting, especially with Roe, but please don't rely on the Supreme Court, an appointed and politically insulated judicial body, to write law just because once in a while they are on the same page as you. Not their job, nor should it be. You know better than that.
Want a right to privacy? Write your congressman (or apply for uproxy private beta testing).
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347#writing-USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZD http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347#writing...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- d0ugie 12y agoPrivacy encompasses more than physical search. So, no, it is still not in the Constitution. What is in the Constitution is which branches of government do what, and no such convenient overlap is afforded to the judicial branch to allow them any latitude, certainly not a lot, to grease the wheels of societal evolution. What's vague about this amendment to you? That it lacks a footnote saying "Yes we deliberately did not include a right to privacy here, but want to give the Court some wiggle room to do the right thing"?
- termain 12y agoThat all depends on what rights are. If they're something that the government exists to protect, than the 9th Amendment can be construed to give the courts that latitude.
- lugg 12y agoI dont believe the logistics of a right to privacy would never work. I think the founders knew this and instead wrote very broad laws against the kind of abuses which may result in a loss of privacy. Privacy is very hard to define, protection against unreasonable search and seizure of papers and belongings, not so much. Why electronic messages and documents aren't considered blindly as "papers" is beyond me. The intent was obvious. At least to me. Further, I dont really care about my privacy nearly as much as can be done with a lack thereof.
- ubernostrum 12y agoAs you correctly noted, the Constitution explicitly does not afford a right to privacy and other intangibles. This argument gets a lot stronger when you remove the Ninth Amendment from the Constitution. People can joke about all the "penumbras and emanations" silliness, but the fact remains that there's explicit support for protecting rights not explicitly enumerated.