A question should a actual right to privacy be added as an amendment to the Constitution? Below is the court case that has added it as a right even though it is not specifically mentioned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
You say that yet couldn't a Supreme court ruling change that? Here is an example of a Supreme Court Justice that did not agree with that interpretation of the 9th. Justice Hugo Black My Brother GOLDBERG has adopted the recent discovery that the Ninth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause, can be used by this Court as authority to strike down all state legislation which this Court thinks violates "fundamental principles of liberty and justice", or is contrary to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people". ... [O]ne would certainly have to look far beyond the language of the Ninth Amendment to find that the Framers vested in this Court any such awesome veto powers over lawmaking, either by the States or by the Congress. Nor does anything in the history of the Amendment offer any support for such a shocking doctrine. The whole history of the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights points the other way, and the very material quoted by my Brother GOLDBERG shows that the Ninth Amendment was intended to protect against the idea that, "by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power" to the Federal Government, "those rights which were not singled out were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government [the United States], and were consequently insecure." That Amendment was passed not to broaden the powers of this Court or any other department of "the General Government", but, as every student of history knows, to assure the people that the Constitution in all its provisions was intended to limit the Federal Government to the powers granted expressly or by necessary implication. ... [F]or a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs. Now consider if one Judge of this bent sees this could not other judges also see this? As such without an enumerated amendment the right to Privacy is strictly based on the "opinions" of 9 judges. Which as has been seen opinions by supreme court justices can change over time.
most of the privacy violations are today done by corporations and consumers give it up willingly in trade for target ads vs just random ads the government should always need a warrant
The right to privacy is pretty much covered in law.. as in where can you reasonably expect privacy. I don't think we need to change the Constitution.
But the right to privacy is based on the interpretation of an amendment that was never intended. As such a new interpretation could be made. It has happened multiple times in our history. As such without it actually being enumerated it is not guaranteed. Think on this you said "pretty much." Do you want any of your rights to be "pretty much" guaranteed or would you prefer your rights to "be" guaranteed? Or for others is the right of privacy even a concern of yours?
So does that mean you do not think there is such a thing as a right to privacy beyond the 4th amendment?
Abortion is not really an issue of privacy. It is an issue of choice by a woman who does not want to gestate a child. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about that. It would take an amendment to codify such a thing. That's why Roe is bad law.
A very liberal society could and would rule that an unborn human has rights. It is simply a matter of majority rule. However to amend the U.S. Constitution would require a super-majority. I don't see this ever happening. The best that could happen is that the Trump SCOTUS as reconstituted would simply repeal Roe and make abortion a states rights issue again. This is a realistic possibility. Kennedy is retiring. Ginsberg is drooling from old age.
There is no need to add an amendment for rights. The 9th Amendment clearly says that the enumerated rights are not our only rights.
That is an interpretation done by the supreme court. One not agreed to by all Justices that have sat on the court. It could also not be agreed to by future courts who could over turn that interpretation. Risky if you consider the Right of privacy important. Do you actually believe that no court interpretation can be changed by a ideologically changed supreme court?
I very much support an amendment for a right to privacy. The government has too many ways to grab information on us without our permission or a court order right now. It seems that the executive branch is always trying to reach out, only to get slapped by the judicial branch. If we don't codify it, it only takes one or two bad rulings to make us into an always watched police state.
I'm reminded of Madison's proposed amendment guaranteeing freedom of conscience, and of wondering how the hell he imagined something like that would be enforceable. But as for privacy, we can hardly discuss the possibilities in any depth without an actual proposal to pick apart, so let's try this on for size: Every legal resident of the United States shall be afforded the right to privacy. Two obvious questions: 1. Since many legal residents are children, does this mean their parents can't monitor their internet activity? 2. If your next door neighbor decides you show inordinate interest in the goings-on in his back yard, do you want him to have redress in federal court? Those came to mind immediately, but surely plenty of others could be thought of.
I think we can use yguy's one for a point of reference. Though I bet there are plenty far smarter then me who could come up with others. We have been told that there IS a right to privacy by the courts. The problem I see is that 9 people say it is a right, then make decisions based on that right, and 9 different people can say it is not a right because it is not actually stated anywhere and based on opinion. What about you do you have what would be good verbiage for such an amendment?
Yguy's text shows the problem with actually coming up with something that makes sense rather than opening a Pandora's box in which parents are banned from their kids rooms or looking at someone becomes a constitutional violation. I think the proper way to to treat this I think is not by constitutional amendment but the fact that the Constitution only grants enumerated powers to the Federal government. Besides, we already have a 4th Amendment.
I suggest you look at how that's phrased versus the phrasing of the enumeration of every individual right in the Constitution.
1. When my kids were at home, they didn't have freedom of speech or of religion, so why would they have a right to privacy with me? I do agree that my kids' internet activity (on devices owned by me or them) should not be allowed to be monitored or restricted by the government. 2. Rights only protect us from the government, not from non-governmental people.
Isn't the right to privacy enshrined in 4A? Being secure in your person, your house, your papers and effects is stating that you have the right to privacy. Where this right stops is when you make something public, such as narcotics and alcohol use in a public arena because said person has involved other people by extension of their behavior.
The proposed amendment imposes no such qualification. Rights per se don't protect anyone from anything, which is why they need to be secured by governments instituted among men. You think governments are instituted among men to protect men from the government? Not really, since some of the entities you do business with (bank, ISP, etc.) will have information about you that you can't claim ownership of.
That is from searches and seizures from the government but not protection from other intrusions in your privacy I would think. Do the use the 4th as the basis of privacy protection?
"Private communications" should be added. So should attorney-client privilege. Civil seizures and forfeitures by police violates the constitution, but federal courts generally rule for their own power (ie they are the government just as are police.)
That seems sound except many companies like all phone carriers essentially opt you in to removing your privacy or else your phone doesnt work. Even when you turn off your location your phone still tracks where you go, how long youve been there and even when you exited your vehicle. It simply updates it when you connect to a network again. There should be stronger laws that are detailed towards electronic devices. I believe a reasonable expectation of privacy is in my living room. If you have a smart tv...check your settings, your cable company has enabled your mic and camera if equipped and will actively record your conversions and activity. You opted into this automatically when you signed up for cable. I dont think an 80yr old is going to be tech sav enough to even know about this much less go deep into their settings to turn it off. I check mine periodically and its reset periodically back to "listen mode". I dont think a cable or phone company has the right to secretly enable my electronics to listen to me simply because I became a customer. Thats like a doctor saying I get to rape you while under anesthesia and if you dont agree then dont sign up for the service. I encourage everyone to read your google privacy in its entirety as well as all of your policies. Its as creepy as it gets.