amyjc
Mar 3, 2010, 04:32 PM
While driving into school this week I was listening to Diane Rehm on Washington’s NPR radio station. The discussion was regarding the effects of the 2010 U.S. Census that is currently being conducted. This made me think of the rights to privacy that Americans are entitled too. Many Americans were voicing concerns about their right to privacy in regards to the 2010 census. They saw the census 2010 forms as an invasion in privacy in some aspects. For example, there was one question that asked what time a person leaves their house in the morning. The question was asked to find out if any changes need to possibly be made within the transportation department. Although, this is being seen as an intrusion because this information allows another person to know when their house will be vacant during the day. One major concern was the question of a person’s ethnic background. Many Arab Americans were uneasy about answering this because of terrorist attacks that have been committed. If there was to be another terrorist attack, Arab Americans were afraid that the communities in which they live in would be a target by answering this. Should Americans have a constitutionally protected right to privacy? Do they really even have this protected right?
The following is some background information which explains the origins of the right to privacy and its effect on Supreme Court decisions. The right of privacy is defined as the right to be free of government interference in those aspects of one’s personal life that do not affect others. The Constitution addresses the right of privacy in the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right of privacy is another civil liberty which guarantees Americans the fundamental freedoms that together preserve the rights of a free people. Although, when the Constitution was drafted it did not include explicit protection for individual civil liberties. Instead, the civil liberties of Americans were explicitly discussed in the Bill of Rights. The Federalists added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution in the form of ten amendments because the ratification was in danger by Anti-Federalists who opposed this ratification. These ten amendments were approved by the first Congress in 1790. These amendments at first applied only to the national government and not the states which led to the thought of both being possible. It was not until after the Civil War that the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed and applied to all Americans including former slaves. The due process clause allowed further specifications of individual rights by stating in the fourteenth amendment that no state shall infringe upon the liberties of Americans.
And should the right to privacy be voted on by majority opinion? As it states here....
The third and fourth amendment’s all address personal privacy. The third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in homes and the fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s when the Court began to recognize more of a need to a person’s right to privacy. This recognition began with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut which declared the law prohibiting the use of contraceptives unconstitutional. Court rulings have been consistent with the measure of public opinion. For example, the case Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 showed that a majority believed that homosexual relationships should be outlawed which meant that homosexual behavior was not exempt from state regulation in Georgia. However, in 2001 many Americans favored legalizing homosexual behavior. The case of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 revisited this issue where Justice Kennedy decided in the majority opinion that homosexual behavior will no longer remain binding precedent. Privacy for individuals extended further when the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right of privacy included the right of abortion in 1973. The ruling of this case gave a woman the right to choose but not all abortions are regulated such as cases involving a minor or after the first trimester of pregnancy. The judicial system tends to favor the majority opinion in terms of right to privacy.
And where do we stop regarding our private rights as individuals with the latest technology and newer issues such as being screened even more carefully in the airports..? As it says here about privacy within technology..
The privacy of individuals has been reduced due to newer technology which has led to crimes such as identity theft. Some want the government to protect personal privacy with new legislation but others fear that the government itself will be the biggest intruder into people’s private lives. For example, more than two million video cameras have been installed in public places. With the increased advanced technology, the Supreme Court has not had time to establish rules which clearly interpret the Constitution in cases involving this information age privacy. Although, the case of Kyllo v. United States in 2001 the Court remains concerned with protecting the privacy of individuals. In this case the Court considered whether police departments could make use of thermal imaging equipment to examine a suspect’s home without a search warrant. Kyllo was suspected of illegally growing marijuana in his home and police used the thermal equipment to check for the hot halide lamps necessary to grow plants indoors. Police argued that the fourth amendment was not violated since they did not enter the home but Kyllo argued his home had been unconstitutionally searched without a warrant. The Court agreed with Kyllo in a five to four opinion citing from the original meaning of the fourth amendment.
The following is some background information which explains the origins of the right to privacy and its effect on Supreme Court decisions. The right of privacy is defined as the right to be free of government interference in those aspects of one’s personal life that do not affect others. The Constitution addresses the right of privacy in the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The right of privacy is another civil liberty which guarantees Americans the fundamental freedoms that together preserve the rights of a free people. Although, when the Constitution was drafted it did not include explicit protection for individual civil liberties. Instead, the civil liberties of Americans were explicitly discussed in the Bill of Rights. The Federalists added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution in the form of ten amendments because the ratification was in danger by Anti-Federalists who opposed this ratification. These ten amendments were approved by the first Congress in 1790. These amendments at first applied only to the national government and not the states which led to the thought of both being possible. It was not until after the Civil War that the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed and applied to all Americans including former slaves. The due process clause allowed further specifications of individual rights by stating in the fourteenth amendment that no state shall infringe upon the liberties of Americans.
And should the right to privacy be voted on by majority opinion? As it states here....
The third and fourth amendment’s all address personal privacy. The third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in homes and the fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s when the Court began to recognize more of a need to a person’s right to privacy. This recognition began with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut which declared the law prohibiting the use of contraceptives unconstitutional. Court rulings have been consistent with the measure of public opinion. For example, the case Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 showed that a majority believed that homosexual relationships should be outlawed which meant that homosexual behavior was not exempt from state regulation in Georgia. However, in 2001 many Americans favored legalizing homosexual behavior. The case of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 revisited this issue where Justice Kennedy decided in the majority opinion that homosexual behavior will no longer remain binding precedent. Privacy for individuals extended further when the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right of privacy included the right of abortion in 1973. The ruling of this case gave a woman the right to choose but not all abortions are regulated such as cases involving a minor or after the first trimester of pregnancy. The judicial system tends to favor the majority opinion in terms of right to privacy.
And where do we stop regarding our private rights as individuals with the latest technology and newer issues such as being screened even more carefully in the airports..? As it says here about privacy within technology..
The privacy of individuals has been reduced due to newer technology which has led to crimes such as identity theft. Some want the government to protect personal privacy with new legislation but others fear that the government itself will be the biggest intruder into people’s private lives. For example, more than two million video cameras have been installed in public places. With the increased advanced technology, the Supreme Court has not had time to establish rules which clearly interpret the Constitution in cases involving this information age privacy. Although, the case of Kyllo v. United States in 2001 the Court remains concerned with protecting the privacy of individuals. In this case the Court considered whether police departments could make use of thermal imaging equipment to examine a suspect’s home without a search warrant. Kyllo was suspected of illegally growing marijuana in his home and police used the thermal equipment to check for the hot halide lamps necessary to grow plants indoors. Police argued that the fourth amendment was not violated since they did not enter the home but Kyllo argued his home had been unconstitutionally searched without a warrant. The Court agreed with Kyllo in a five to four opinion citing from the original meaning of the fourth amendment.