A Right to Privacy???
The precedent setting case for the right to privacy was Griswold v. Connecticut. The case involved the right of “marital privacy” and whether a law in Connecticut banning the use of contraceptives was constitutional. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the law was in fact unconstitutional. The justices used many amendments to justify their positions on the case. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas said the right to privacy could be found in the “penumbras” of other amendments. Other justices used various amendments to base their decisions on, including the fifth, ninth, and fourteenth. It was this case which first established that people had a right against government intrusion into private activities. Substantive due process played a key role in this and future decisions. This newer legal concept gave the courts the power to determine and expand certain rights not explicitly listed in the bill of rights. It also gave them significant power in striking down laws, which violated their concept of certain human rights.
Each amendment plays a significant role in establishing a right to privacy although perhaps the most important is the first amendment. The former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Joseph A. Califano Jr. has stated, “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.” What this means is that although it isn’t specifically stated in the text of the amendment a right to privacy was intended to be included in the amendment and is included outside of the strict text that was written. It is my opinion that this is one of the most persuasive arguments that supports the right to privacy. I am in complete agreement that the founders would have wanted citizens to have a right to privacy and perhaps they left it out because it would have been too hard to define every situation and whether a right to privacy should be granted. They instead implied the right and decided to leave it up to the courts to interpret each and every situation, which arises to challenge the right to privacy. For a right to privacy to be absolute I feel that it takes all arguments and constitutional justifications. They must culminate into one statement, each clarifying that such a right does indeed exist.
I am personally opposed to a constitutional amendment that explicitly enumerates a right to privacy. I feel an amendment could aid the government, specifically the judiciary because a right to privacy would be definite and not left up for argument in front of the Supreme Court however my objection to the amendment lies in the same reasoning. If the right to privacy is to be added to the constitution via amendment, not all situations in which privacy should be protected could be listed. An amendment such as this would basically give anyone the right to violate anothers privacy as long as the situation is not explicitly mentioned in the amendment. This amendment would either lead to the violation of privacy by individuals or government authority if it was too narrow, or the inability to be modified in times of war if too broad. Either of these situations is not good and is why I feel it is not a good idea to make the right to privacy an amendment.
There are many court decisions on the books already establishing the right to privacy including Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. Also reiterating the right to privacy is the universal declaration of Human Rights, which in article 12 states that everyone has a right to privacy. This document is one, which the U.S. strictly enforces, and by stating that everyone has a right to privacy yet again establishes the right. Through court decisions and the Supreme Court’s interpretations of laws a right to privacy for everyone has been established.
