How about a privacy amendment to the Constitution

[JDPriestly]

The Supreme Court has ruled that we have privacy rights based on a combination of rights granted in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. How about adding an amendment that guarantees our right to privacy? Why don't we start a movement to amend the Constitution to guarantee the right to privacy.

[rawtribe]

1. Thought we already had one.

Amendment IV

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.

[DesEtoiles]

2. The Ninth Amendment - it's already there.

[punpirate]

3. Why is it necessary?

The Fourth Amendment covers that with regard to homes, papers and person. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments together guarantee that all rights not reserved to the federal government or the states are held by the people.

Cheers.

[JDPriestly]

5. The right to privacy as recognized by the Supreme Court

is based on interpreting several of the separate amendments in the BIll of Rights to mean that we have a right to privacy. There is no separate, independent, clearly enunciated guarantee of a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The California Constitution clearly and straightforwardly guarantees the right to privacy. There is no reason that the U.S. Constitution can't do the same thing.

I believe that the Bill of Rights does guarantee our right to privacy as you point out through among other things the Fourth Amendment, but this does not seem to be clear enough for the Right-wing nuts. I believe that many Republicans and Libertarians would support us in passing an amendment to guarantee that right. As it is, the Supreme Court and the Patriot Act among other things have eaten away at the Fourth Amendment to the point that it means very little. Although the police do not have the right to enter your property without a warrant, police helicopters with telescopic lens cameras and binoculars can fly over your private property at such a low altitude that they can see how well you have cooked the steaks on your barbecue grill, and you can't do a thing about it. We have constant helicopters over our house in Los Angeles. The noise is horrible and totally unnecessary.

Besides, why do people renew their wedding vows? Because they want to remind themselves just how important those vows are. We need to renew our vows to human rights over and over because they are important to us. The Bush administration reaction to such a proposal would give a good jolt to those freedom-loving Americans who think the Bush administration is on their side.

[punpirate]

6. I wouldn't argue with the logic...

... in this, except to say that the limitations you suggest are primarily political, i.e., there's an authoritarian attitude among the right which seeks to increase government's intrusive powers and to limit rights. The limitation itself isn't present in the Constitution.

For that reason, I'd be a bit dubious about the prospects for such an amendment getting through the current Congress--and especially for this reason: Roe v. Wade was essentially decided not on the legitimacy of abortion, per se, but, rather, on the fundamentally private nature of the doctor/patient relationship. Once the right figures out that one, it would make passage even more doubtful.

Here's another consideration I would have. Repeated court cases over more than a century have provided corporations (in legal parlance, artificial persons) virtually the same rights under the 14th Amendment as natural persons (in fact, Hugo Black did a study of 14th Amendment cases and found that less than 1/2% were brought by minorities--the remainder were brought by corporations seeking expanded rights). What would be the ramifications of such a privacy amendment with regard to corporations if they were afforded, under the equal protection amendment, rights to privacy equal to natural persons?

Cheers.


edit for syntax.

[tubbacheez]

4. Yup, 9th Amendment.

Like NormaR said, the 9th Amendment covers it.




The RW tends to overlook the 9th when they argue "b-b-b-but there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have the right to XXXXXX".



Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.





(on edit)

The RW likes to interpret the 4th Amendment very narrowly, saying it only covers searches of your home, and of your body when away from home.

They deny that the 4th Amendment covers things like your financial records, your medical records, or your relationships in the community. They claim such things are not protected since they are managed (at least partially) by other entities like banks, hospitals, neighbors, etc.

But what they overlook is that any governmental breach of privacy runs afoul of the 9th Amendment.